Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Causing Death by Driving

Mr. Roger Stott: I wish to present a petition to the House on behalf of my constituents Colin and Margaret Gorton, the parents of Gary Gorton deceased. The petition
Showeth
That their son, Gary, aged four years and 10 months, was killed on Friday 20 August 1993 in Fir Grove, Beech Hill, Wigan when he was run over twice by a customised Toyota pick-up truck, as he was sat on the pavement.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do call upon the Government to change the Law when a driver's negligence or unlawful action causes the death of a person. In all cases the driver must be charged with an offence of 'Causing Death by Driving', and the charge must carry a mandatory ban and an advanced re-test. This charge should replace the present 'Causing Death' charge and should be added to a manslaughter charge where appropriate.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray that this petition be received.

To lie upon the Table.

Hunting

Mr. Elliot Morley: I should like to present a petition signed by 15,000 people in response to changes in the law in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. It reads:
The Petition of members and supporters of the campaign to ban hunting, Declares that compassion should not be criminalised by measures proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill that will restrict the democratic right of people to peacefully demonstrate against hunting.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons allows the opportunity for a vote to legislate against hunting rather than those who protest against it.
And the petitioners remain etc.

To lie upon the Table.

VAT (Fuel)

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have a petition from Frank King of Eckington and 923 residents of the area. Mr. King is concerned about value added tax. He is doubly concerned about its being placed on standing charges and he has my complete support in this matter. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of Eckington and District in Derbyshire showeth that the placing of value added tax upon the standing charges for gas and electricity fuel bills is particularly unjust, as such charges are a fixed amount and cannot even be controlled by limiting a person's fuel consumption and that this places a particularly harsh burden upon those residents who live upon pensions, fixed benefits and low incomes. Wherefore your Petitioners, as in duty bound pray that your Honourable House will take measures to remove the burden of value added tax on standing charges.
And your petitioners, so in duty bound will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Sutton Coldfield (Schools)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]

Sir Norman Fowler: I believe that this is the first Adjournment debate that I have raised for 20 years. After a long spell away trying to provide answers, I get back to the serious business of asking questions. I raise this subject, the position of schools in Sutton Coldfield, against the background of good schools, excellent head teachers, dedicated staff, good results and close working relations between parents and schools. In those circumstances, one might ask what problems there are to be tackled.
The first and most intractable problem arises from the very success of the schools—in particular, the secondary schools. The problem is the scarcity of school places which, each year for the past two or three years, has caused concern and anxiety for children who have been refused places and for the parents of those children.
I shall demonstrate the point. According to Birmingham city council education department, its three schools—Arthur Terry, Plantsbrook and John Willmott—were all considerably over-subscribed this year. The position this year is not much different from previous years. This year, at Arthur Terry there were almost 400 first-preference applicants for 240 places. At John Willmott, there were 398 first-preference applicant for 210 places. At Plantsbrook, there were 335 first-preference applicants for 210 places.
In practice, that meant that siblings living within three miles of schools were given preference and then those living closest to the schools were given preference. Under the rules, many children were excluded. Thus, at Arthur Terry, one of the best schools in Sutton Coldfield, the last child admitted at the time of the allocation lived two and a half miles from the school. A child who lived beyond that limit was excluded.
A boy who lived 2.8 miles away was initially excluded under the allocation, although I am glad to say that, due to movement on the waiting list, the problem has been rectified. Other children were not so swiftly accommodated. Of course, if they failed in their first preference because of the distance limit, there was no chance with their second and third preferences, because other schools' first preferences were already over-subscribed. That has continued over the past three years and it has caused distress and concern for parents and children alike. A parent in my constituency wrote to me.
I now face the prospect of uncertainty over the next three months and I can sense the growing anxiety this situation is causing my son, as unlike many of the pupils in his school he continues to be unsure about which school he is going to go to in September.
That is one quote among dozens over the past three years. No one who has been, as I have, to parents' meetings can fail to recognise the emotion that the subject raises. In 1992, when the problem first arose, I called an impromptu meeting at literally 48 hours' notice. The meeting could scarcely be well advertised—it was not well advertised—but on a Saturday afternoon Sutton Coldfield town hall was filled with anxious parents. That gives some flavour of the concern over the past three years in my constituency.
I pay tribute to all the efforts that have been made to alleviate the problem. Because of the efforts of

headmasters, the local education department and Department for Education representatives whom I have met on several occasions over the year, some of the worst results have been alleviated. There has been nail-biting concern until the last moment, but, over the past two or three years, we have scrambled through. Indeed, at the moment what was once a long waiting list is now down to about 25 Sutton Coldfield children who are still without local education authority places for September. That is still a substantial number, and I hope that the problem will be solved in the coming month.
Does that long and worrying process need to continue year after year? It has taken place since 1992. Does it have to be the case for the rest of the decade and into the next century? Can we reach a better position? Above all, can children in my constituency be assured of a place at the school of their choice in the constituency? That is what I aim at.
Changes are being introduced. On the recommendation of head teachers, the timetable for offering places has been brought forward. Last year, places were allocated on 22 April, and now they will be allocated at the end of January or early February. In addition, in the past, parents had to submit their choice by Christmas. This year, for 1995, they will have to return their choice cards by the end of September. Greater information is being given to parents to help them with their choice of school. For example, they will be told the allocation patterns over the past two years and they will be warned of difficulties with the popularity of certain schools. Those are very useful steps. I pay tribute to them—I have no criticism whatsoever. They will certainly assist administration.
But there is a more fundamental problem. One of the reasons for the problems that we face in Sutton Coldfield is that, because of the good reputations of the schools, parents from other parts of Birmingham and from elsewhere wish to send their children to those schools. It was once a minor issue, but in 1992, when the problem started, the age of transfer in Sutton Coldfield, which was 12, went down to 11. With that change in the age of transfer, which was good for all kinds of educational reasons, came various problems.
If it is to be the policy that children from other areas can go to schools in Sutton Coldfield because of their quality and reputation, there must be an adequate number of places to meet such demand. It would serve no one if that were not the case. It would certainly serve absolutely no one if children who are unsuccessful have to travel miles out of their local area, away from their friends, to other schools.
I pay tribute to the Government. I have been to the Department for Education on several occasions. I am grateful to the Government for giving the go-ahead earlier this year for some important capital projects—for example, at Arthur Terry where capacity is now being expanded. I welcome that development—I fought for it, and I was grateful that Ministers acted on it. I am glad to note that work is proceeding literally at this moment at John Willmott. Again, that is very welcome news. Six new classrooms are being created. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that work on the next six classrooms next year will also be approved.
Above all, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm a point of policy. Because there might be a case for reducing provision in some other parts of Birmingham—Birmingham is not the only city with the problem; it is a wider issue—such policy should not prevent the expansion


of schools where there is proven and obvious public demand for schools in other areas. One of the most dispiriting things for parents is to be told to send their children five or six miles to another area because there are spare places there. That is not a policy of choice. A policy of choice allows the development of popular and successful schools to meet public demand. That is what our policy should be.
That policy was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) in his circular of 22 June. I will, in passing, pay tribute to the former Secretary of State for Education who achieved a great deal in his time at the Department for Education and with whom I always very much enjoyed working. One of his most successful policies was set out in a consultative circular on 22 June on choice and diversity for new school places, which he called "Putting Quality First".
My right hon. Friend's policy was that, in line with the parents charter, the views of parents should be given full weight when proposals on school provision are made. The Secretary of State must always consider carefully the educational, as well as the financial and organisational, merits of any proposals. The consultative document stated that the criteria for approving new school places should be in the interests of quality, and that the Secretary of State for Education will approve new school places where there is no shortage of places.
That was a very important statement and it took forward the popular schools initiative of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he was Secretary of State for Education. Will my hon. Friend the Minister today confirm that that remains the policy of the Government?
One further point concerns me about the question of capacity, and this also concerns Conservative councillors in Sutton Coldfield and an organisation called PANIC, which was set up to deal with the problem of capacity and of children being refused places. The point that concerns me is whether expanding existing schools is a sufficient policy in itself. In other words, does there come a point when expansion cannot be taken any further?
We are probably coming to the limits of the natural capacity of the existing schools in Sutton Coldfield. For example, by September 1995, John Willmott will be taking 1,200 children and I doubt whether it can accommodate any more. The question that then arises is whether a new school can be provided in Sutton Coldfield and, if so, how it can be done.
We know that the pupil population will grow, on average, by about 14 per cent. during the next decade. We can guess that an area such as Sutton Coldfield, on the outskirts of a major conurbation, will be one of the areas where school population will rise as housing development continues. What should be the course? The circular to which I have referred describes the prospects of new grant-maintained schools being created.
The prospect of grant-maintained schools holds no terrors for those of us in Sutton Coldfield. Fairfax is grant-maintained, and, more interestingly, Walmley junior and infant schools are grant-maintained. I visited those schools last Friday and even from a short visit the high morale and the pride that they take in the fact that they are now running their own show was clear. There are no terrors for us with grant-maintained schools.
I should be grateful if the Minister could set out the plans for that area, the criteria by which new schools can be created, the prospects for the creation of such new schools and the time scale about which we are talking.
There are two other issues that I wish to touch on briefly. Although available places is the major problem, I also wish to refer to the problem of the maintenance provision in our schools. I mentioned grant-maintained Walmley school a moment ago. The only complaint there is about the quality of buildings that that school has inherited. That is not a product of the past one or two years, but of year after year of neglect by the local education authority which has not spent the money that has been necessary on maintaining the fabric of the schools.
As happened all too often in the past, the authority cut the capital programme when it should have maintained it by a step-by-step programme. I shall give examples. Walmley now has 370 children in the junior school and 250 in the infant school. It inherited buildings which are in urgent need of renovation on the outside, which have not been painted for years, where repairs have been put off and where buildings have been neglected. In some cases, children are still using huts which have long since outlived their usefulness.
The process has occurred over a long period and the responsibility for it undoubtedly rests with the LEA. But the responsibility now, as far the grant-maintained school is concerned, rests with the Department. The proper maintenance of buildings may not be an obviously striking popular education issue and it is not necessarily an issue which has detained education conference after education conference. Yet when maintenance is neglected, the working environment for children and teachers is poorer than it need be. That is doubly frustrating when everything else in the school is going well. Anyone who wants to see an example of the process should go to Walmley or to my second example in Sutton Coldfield, Mere Green combined school, where the same evidence is on show.
Mere Green brings me to pre-school provision, the third and last point that I wish to raise about schools in my constituency. Mere Green is another excellent school which is now providing nursery education for just over 100 children. There is no doubt about the need for that provision and Mere Green has shown what can be done. I congratulate the school on that and I hope that it will continue to be supported by the local education authority.
In the coming months, the Government will want to develop plans as a result of the consideration that is now being given to the nursery area. It is an issue of importance and I hope that my hon. Friend might say a word or two on it. I recognise that there are cost restraints; it would be foolish not to do so, but we need a path forward in this area.
I have raised three issues—the lack of places, the physical state of schools and nursery provision, of which the most urgent is the places issue. I do not want to see the same problem, year after year, of worried and concerned children and teachers. The only way forward is to support the expansion of popular schools and consider the building of new schools. I recognise that when there are surplus places in an LEA area, difficulties which will be created. However, that is a separate issue and the Government should expand the popular schools to which parents want to send their children.
It brings no comfort to anyone that children must travel miles out of their own home area to find school places. The Government should encourage good schools and give


children the opportunity of as good an education as possible. Sutton Coldfield has an excellent range of schools by any standards. That it is good news and is what the Government's education policy is all about, but their success brings with it the problem of attracting to those schools children from a wide area, and that needs to be addressed. The Government should support schools that are popular because of the excellent education which they provide.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Norman Fowler) on securing this debate on a topic which is of great importance to him and has a wider resonance in the House. On the day when he can be seen to quit the front firing line of public life, we as a country owe him a great debt of gratitude for his contribution as a Secretary of State in the past. In his party capacity, we are grateful to him for his work as party chairman.
My right hon. Friend warned the House that it is some 20 years since he launched an Adjournment debate. I see no diminution in his force or eloquence in raising this matter on behalf of his constituents. They should be grateful to him for raising matters of considerable importance to Sutton Coldfield and of wider national importance. From the reports that I have from officials, I fully understand my right hon. Friend's concern that the excellent standards that pertain generally in Sutton Coldfield should be maintained and encouraged. Indeed, other areas need to raise themselves to those standards.
My right hon. Friend rightly identified salient areas of interest, which I shall deal with during my remarks. If he feels that anything has been elided or compressed, I hope that he will feel that he can come back to me on it. We have listened carefully and will reflect on the points that he has made.
If I might give a little historic context, the background to the issue was the change from 12-plus to 11-plus in 1992, which has created another year group in the schools in Sutton Coldfield. I fully understand the important point that my right hon. Friend makes: that, as capacity shortens, the capacity to deliver choice at the margin diminishes rather more quickly. He has explained that in relation to the schools that he mentioned, and the data that I have confirm it.
Therefore, it would be most effective for the House if I answer the debate by explaining the general position of Government policy, as it bears on the points that my right hon. Friend made. This is a most welcome opportunity for us to restate the Government's commitment to increasing choice, quality and diversity in all schools, whatever their local education authority, to draw attention to what has been done to date and to explain some of our plans for the future.
Improving quality and choice in education underpins all the Government's education reforms. My right hon. Friend may not know that last week I spoke to the Council of Local Education Authorities in Wolverhampton and emphasised our common objectives and the importance of all authorities—for example, the LEA for its maintained

schools, the Funding Agency for Schools and the Government—working together to deliver quality and choice. It is a progressive policy. It takes time to fulfil. If, perhaps, I cannot give my right hon. Friend all the immediate assurance that he requires, he will understand.
We have an impressive record on expanding the choice of school to meet the wishes of parents. We attach enormous importance to parents being able, so far as possible—that is a necessary qualification—to send their children to the school of their choice. In the Education Act 1980, some way back now, we gave parents the right to express a choice among local schools—something which they had been denied previously. We gave them a right to appeal if they felt that the wrong decision had been taken. That provided an important second bite of the cherry.
Since that time, parents have been able to apply to any maintained school, and the admission authority—the governing body of a grant-maintained school or a voluntary-aided school and the LEA in other cases—has to comply with their preference unless the pupils do not meet the academic standard for selective education or do not satisfy the religious requirements for entry to the school, so that the religious character of the school would not be preserved.
The more open enrolment provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988 reinforced the measures in the 1980 Act and were designed to extend choice of school. More open enrolment—MOE in the trade—and pupil-led funding under local management of schools—LMS—give all schools an incentive to attract and retain pupils by responding positively to parental concern for good-quality education. As it were, money follows the pupils.
More open enrolment was designed to eliminate artificial admissions limits. It ensured that schools admitted up to the school's standard number or any higher admissions number set. Bringing admissions more into line with the capacity of a school made it easier for parents to gain the school of their choice.
My right hon. Friend touched on the important point that local education authorities could no longer justify keeping admissions down at popular schools to prop up the less popular schools. On that point, I can give my right hon. Friend a clear assurance. We simply cannot accept that parental choice should be frustrated in that way. If a school is popular and there is space, a pupil has to be admitted, even if it means exposing the fact that an unpopular school is indeed unpopular, and has low intakes as a result.
To continue the story of development, in 1993 the Government took further action, as promised under the parents charter, to strengthen parents' rights in the appeals process. All appeals committees must now have a lay member, and the rules are such that representatives of the school governing body or the LEA can no longer be in a majority. Admission authorities must advertise for people willing to serve as lay members. The result is that parents who take their cases to appeal can have renewed confidence. The appeal will be heard fairly and impartially, and the appeal committee will take a balanced decision between the needs of the child and the implications for the school. Despite the difficulties that we all recognise in Sutton Coldfield, where the position has developed from a large number of dissatisfied parents of pupils towards a reducing, but, I accept, still significant number, the admissions policy and, I hope, the appeals process are working.
No less important was the publication in July 1993 of our circular 6/93 "Admissions to maintained schools". It set out for admission authorities their duties and responsibilities, but it also went much further. For the first time, schools and LEAs were given some clear guidance, derived from best practice, on what type of approach and which varieties of admissions criteria were desirable and which were not.
The basic message was clear, and was again based on citizens charter principles: parents should be able to see and understand without difficulty how an LEA or school would decide which children to admit before they stated their preference. I sympathise with the points that my right hon. Friend has made about proper information to parents. They should be able to have some idea of their chance of success. In particular, it was important that there should be clear, objective criteria for over-subscription—in other words, how a school would decide between competing claims when places were limited in a way that was fair and objective and so that everyone understood what was going on.
We have also helped to open up schools through the publication of performance and truancy data and reports under the new inspection system so that parents know how schools are doing. That can help inform their choice. That is part of our overall approach to quality.
Improvements in the way in which children are admitted to schools and in giving parents a real say in the outcome have been accompanied, of course, by a significant and continuing increase in the choice and diversity of school provision from which parents can choose. The first grant-maintained school was opened in 1989, only five years ago; now there are almost 1,000. There are 15 city technology colleges, and now 25 technology colleges, and more on the way. I note in passing that there is only one secondary and one primary grant-maintained school in Sutton Coldfield. I shall come back to that in a moment.
Of course, not all parents have or, perhaps more important, consider that they have a genuine choice to make. In some areas, parents may feel that there is only one good school—all others are second best, some are worse than that. But things are moving in the right direction and I believe that, as quality and standards improve in school, more and more parents will be happy with the prospect of sending their child to a school other than their first preference—although, by definition, first preference is best.
My right hon. Friend asked about some schools. being allowed to expand. He referred to the launch last month of the new circular on the supply of school places. It was carefully considered by my colleagues, but it remains a consultative circular. I cannot anticipate its final form until consultation is complete. It marks another milestone: in the progressive drive to raise standards in our schools.
In what we describe as our new settlement for education, we set out the basis for the development of schools policy over the next few years. We are taking a much closer interest in quality and standards than our predecessors have ever done in the era since the Butler education legislation 50 years ago. Securing the: right supply of high-quality school places is a key part of that picture. The key objective is not quantity but quality. Population growth to the end of the decade means that nationally we will need more new places in our schools. We must ensure that they are high-quality places.
The circular to which I referred sets out the new framework for the organisation of schools to deliver higher quality, allied with, and in no sense incompatible with, more choice and diversity. The role of the new Funding Agency for Schools is set out in the circular. The agency is a key part of the new framework. As more than 10 per cent. of Birmingham's secondary pupils are educated in schools other than maintained schools, the funding agency has shared responsibility with the LEA for planning educational provision, and the opportunity to work together to ensure that demand for school places is met effectively.
My right hon. Friend mentioned promoting new schools. The circular provides guidance on a new type of school to be described as grant maintained with promoters. There is already much interest and we look forward to well-founded proposals from promoters to help increase quality, choice and diversity. It may be helpful to my right hon. Friend if I make it clear that all proposals will be considered by Ministers on their individual merits against a number of criteria. Of course, the need for places and parental demand will be important considerations.
The Secretary of State will, however, consider approving proposals for new capacity in areas of surplus where it would add to quality, choice and diversity and where there is scope for subsequent rationalisation. Other factors will include suitability of premises, qualifications of teachers, ability to meet the requirements of the national curriculum and other relevant factors. We are moving very much in the direction that my right hon. Friend would like.
The circular also makes it clear that, under certain circumstances, approval may be given for new school places, even when there is no expected shortfall in capacity. It will be considered, in particular, in schools where the new places will significantly enhance the objectives of quality, choice and diversity and where they could be matched by withdrawals of excess places at other schools.
The need for new places in an area will continue to be a key factor in decisions about whether to approve new capacity. We would expect it to be improved in the absence of a shortfall only in a minority of cases where there is clear evidence of improved choice, diversity and quality and the scope for rationalisation to which I referred. It is an important modification of the traditional approach, but obviously it does not go totally in the opposite direction.
Alongside the drive to raise quality, we will continue to seek the removal of unnecessary surplus places. That is an important objective for all LEAs and my right hon. Friend referred to it in the context of Birmingham.
We believe that resources available to education must be spent first and foremost on pupils and not unnecessary buildings. Of course, some surplus may be justified—for parental choice and to preserve access to village schools, for example—but wherever practical, expensive excess places should be removed and the circular sets out a new streamlined procedure for achieving that.
My right hon. Friend expressed concern about the state of school buildings in Birmingham. That is primarily the responsibility of the LEA. The Wragg report has been published and he knows about that. It is well documented that some schools have had less spend on their fabric and repairs than they might have and that has been proper cause for parental concern. I am glad that the city council has recently decided to increase the amount that it spends on education.
A third vital area that my right hon. Friend mentioned was nursery education. He is aware that the Government would like to see a widening of nursery and other pre-school provision as resources become available. We are exploring ways, as resources allow, of making pre-school provision more widely available to those children who do not at present benefit. No decisions can be taken on statutory proposals until the outcome of the Government's current review is known, but we hope to keep further delay to a minimum.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we have a progressive and impressive record of expanding choice and diversity and trying to meet the needs of parents. Our aims must continue to be the same as those of my right hon. Friend—to meet the real desires and demands of parents. I hope that the measures that we have taken and can take in conjunction with local authorities and, as appropriate, the Funding Agency for Schools, will go some way towards alleviating the problems in Sutton Coldfield and benefiting parents and the pupils in the schools.
In concluding my remarks on an important topic, I thank my right hon. Friend for raising it and use the opportunity to express to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend, all hon. Members present and the staff my best wishes for a good rest during the vacation break and an interesting and, I hope, constructive autumn term.

Minibus Safety

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It must be much more difficult to be a parent now than at any time in our history, not least because, in addition to the normal problems that face every mother and father, there are modern hazards which did not exist when I was young, or even when my children were young.
My daughter recently decided that it was not in the interests of her child to travel in the minibus provided by the school for a long school journey. She took him in the car, deposited him at the place, picked him up and brought him away. That raised a number of issues that I discussed with her.
First, she was lucky in that she had some form of transport—it is somewhat beaten up but it works—to which many mothers do not have access. Secondly, it is clear from the statistics that children are slightly more at risk in a car than in a minibus. Thirdly, what effect would there be on the already very stringent limitations on children's time and life if they are eternally unable to take part in various activities because they cannot get there or because the transport available is substandard?
We shall have to confront the problem with much more vigour. The Government have known for some time now that parents all over the country are concerned about minibuses. The issue is highlighted by the terrible accidents that occur from time to time. It is all very well to say that statistically there are very few, but for any parent who loses a child in a motorway accident, the loss is irreparable and the damage is so frightening that for the rest of the parents it becomes a matter of great and active concern.
We now have to do a great deal more than say simply that we want to talk about seat belts with the European Community and see what we can do to change the rules. Those of us who take an interest in these matters remember that when there was discussion within the European Community about changing the way in which buses were used, minibuses, which are a strong feature of voluntary life in Britain, were exempted because British Ministers said—at the time with some justification—that simply to bring in a restriction which made it impossible for people to use minibuses would wipe out large numbers of school and voluntary activities for such groups as scout troops, guides and the mentally handicapped.
Many people use minibuses, but they are not ideal and the dangers are very real. It is extraordinary that anyone with an ordinary driving licence can drive a minibus and be in control of 14 young lives—let us not be mealy-mouthed about it: they could be the lives of people in any age group. Anyone can do that on a voluntary basis. There is no control on the number of hours that a driver may work. A schoolteacher or a voluntary worker could thus have done a full day's work and then had to make a long journey driving a minibus. Urgent action must therefore be taken to impose strict laws.
One thing is always certain about Conservative Governments: Transport Ministers change jobs with the speed of light. A former Transport Minister, just before he left office, announced that we would apply to the Community for some controls over seat belts—but he went no further than that. He did not say how that would be paid for, or what extra controls were needed; and he did not say


that he was prepared to talk to voluntary bodies to find a way of putting these changes into operation as soon as possible.
If the Government are serious, there are a number of rule changes that they must rapidly bring before the House —not in a year's time or in three years' time, if that happens to fit in with the Community. I should like measures announced in the Queen's Speech and implemented in the coming year.
The charter for minibuses points up some of the measures that those who work continually in the voluntary sector believe should be incorporated in any new system. The Community Transport Association, which relies almost wholly on minibuses, has given a great deal of thought to the matter and has identified the more important aspects of it. It recommends, for instance, that all seats be forward facing; there is clear evidence that bench seats are dangerous. Seats should be high-backed or incorporate protection for the head and neck so that people do not suffer from whiplash, which costs the national health service a lot of money and causes a great deal of pain to those who suffer from it.
There should be a minimum width of seat. Seats should be securely fixed to the floor by systems stronger than seat belt anchorages. Each seat should be fitted with a height-adjustable lap and diagonal seat belt. Those of us who have spent much of our lives dealing with accidents and.emergencies know only too well the damage that can be done by the wrong kind of seat belt.
Seat belts and anchorages should comply with the specifications ECE14 and ECE16 for vehicles in category M2—that is to say, buses with a maximum gross weight not exceeding 5,000 kg. Regulations require seat belts and anchorages to pass a static test that will provide crash protection. The group also went on to discuss the need to keep gangways clear and to have usable exits.
The Community Transport Association also considered some of the minibuses on our roads. Neil Buxton, co-ordinator of Thamesdown community transport, told a conference recently that one of the minibuses brought to him for a safety audit had been donated to a local boys football club; it had an exposed metal handbrake, only one rear door in working condition and no emergency front exit. He also came across other less dramatic cases, but this one highlighted the fact that many children are being carried around the countryside in vehicles that are not in very good condition. These days many schools have had to give up their playing fields, and children in ordinary state schools have to be conveyed long distances just to take part in team games.
There is also the question of driver training. It is horrifying that anyone can get in and start driving a minibus—anyone with a licence, that is. I believe that the Government should insist on proper training for people who want to undertake this sort of job. They should examine closely whether people know what is involved, whether they have been properly trained and whether they are capable of doing the job. The Government should also consider the rules governing the number of hours people can drive. Fatigue kills, and in a minibus it kills more people at a time.
There are a great many straightforward ideas that the Government could implement rapidly if they were serious about this matter. I am worried about other factors, too, that have a direct impact on road safety. The Government say that they want to do something about saving lives and

improving road safety. We must take them at their word. It is therefore difficult to understand why the things that they do not seem to chime with the things that they say.
Because of the pressures being brought to bear on police forces, many of them are doing away with their traffic divisions. Those units are not there just to irritate motorists by stopping them when they speed, for example. They are trained to look carefully at road vehicles and to assess road accidents and how much the state of a vehicle contributes to those accidents. If we dissipate this expertise by making many more policemen generalists and fewer of them specialists, standards will inevitably be lowered. Cheshire did away with its traffic police several months ago. I call that a backward step.
The Government have taken the conscious decision to privatise the Transport Research Laboratory. Anyone who has been involved for as long as I have in transport matters will know that the expertise of that laboratory contributed to the fact that we have seat belts at all. Car manufacturers were not exactly fighting to put in extra safety gadgets when the campaign for seat belts began. It was the work done by the scientists at the TRL that produced the information and the specifications used by the Government when they introduced seat belt laws. Privatising the unit is one thing; handing it over to people who want to malke a profit will inevitably diminish the amount and quality of research done on safety. No longer will road safety, vehicle safety or the safety of road surfaces be investigated as thoroughly and as independently as before. The Minister would be foolish to suggest otherwise.
We are also concerned about coaches. Many children are taken to school sitting three abreast on seats designed for two. That may be cheaper for whoever happens to win the contract; it may please education authorities whose budgets are already under pressure. But the fact is that it puts children at risk and it should not be allowed.
The Government have moved away from the enforcement of safeguards in respect of vehicles. I have been questioning the Government for some considerable time about all these matters, because I have been so frightened by some of the statistics that are handed out. Easing up on enforcement and cutting the numbers of specialists will inevitably affect the amount of care available for people who use our road surfaces.
When I read the statistics for my region I became exceedingly worried. The vehicle inspectorate is supposed to carry out roadside vehicle safety spot checks—a task it does well. It monitors private car and light goods vehicle Ministry of Transport schemes and, with the police, it investigates accidents. It considers operator licensing maintenance arrangements. All those tasks are essential in considering road transport. I have seen spot checks carried out on a multi-agency basis and I was impressed by the quality of the tests carried out by both the Metropolitan police and other agencies.
I asked the Department of Transport for the statistics on the number of vehicles inspected throughout Britain and the percentage that were found to be defective. The figures that I received from the Minister were alarming. In the north-west, for example, 38,264 vehicles were inspected and 34 per cent. of them were found to be defective. "Defective" is a nice umbrella word that covers many dangerous defects. The table provided by the Minister showed that 4,982 vehicles had defective tires; 2,195 vehicles had defective wheels; 2,864 vehicles had oil leaks; and 1,669 had -steering defects. The Department's


own statistics should be a matter of great concern. Far from cutting the number of people who enforce vehicle inspections, we should be increasing it.
There are clear signs that, in their drive to save money, the Government are cutting at every level services that protect the consumer and the passenger. Traffic area offices are responsible for the issue and monitoring of goods and public service operator licences. They are helped by the vehicle inspectorate and they were set up so that standards could be controlled and enforced. Their budgets have already been cut by £406,000 in the past two years and further cuts are expected in the next two years. In Edinburgh and Cardiff, two of the network offices will be shut.
All that together inevitably puts people more at risk. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will remove a lot of protection for people who think that all vehicles are safe and efficient. It is clear that the proposal to issue an operator's licence for life will have an effect. At the moment, people are brought back and checks are made, but if someone receives an operator's licence for life, nothing like the same degree of control will be available to the Department. We are told that the habit will be developed whereby responsibility for licensing will be handed over to dealers. That will be a retrograde and expensive step if people discover that they can cheat the Inland Revenue even more.
Continuous licensing will mean that review processes will weaken and that more rogue operators will slip through the licensing net. Whichever way one looks at it, that will mean lower standards in the road network, and those standards are the only protection for the average member of the public.
People outside the House would be prepared to support the Government if they were to instigate an energetic scheme to consider road safety, particularly in relation to the conveyance of children in minibuses. They do not want to be told that, because of the constraints of the European Community, they will have to wait until 1996 and that, although the Government will do something, it will apply only to children and not to other groups. They will want to know why the Government are not calling together all the voluntary bodies and finding some means of helping them to fund essential changes. If there were real political will, that could be done.
One has to consider only that the Department of Transport has thrown money away on consultants to know that money is available in the public purse, but that the political will is lacking. There should be some means of saying to voluntary bodies, "If you carry people, would you be prepared to talk to us about the means of setting up a funding scheme that would enable you, either by interest-free loans or some other some practical method, not only to modernise your vehicles, but to ensure that they are safe and useful?" I would have thought that the commercial aspect might have concerned the Government. Such a proposal would generate much work in the industry, but it is saving lives that concerns me.
It is not enough to say that, over a particular period, road deaths decreased and there were fewer accidents involving minibuses. More and more people are carried by minibuses as public transport becomes expensive or non-existent. In rural areas, if one wants to take children, old people or a

specialist group to some activity, one has to provide the transport, which is expensive and frequently causes worry. For the best reasons in the world, such transport is not properly monitored and controlled.
I do not want draconian measures to be pushed without consultation on to voluntary groups, but if the Government were really serious about the issue, they would make a short statement of intent in the Queen's Speech, find a way of producing the cash, and be prepared to insist on something happening in the next 12 months. If they are prepared to invest much money into how to put tolls on motorways, but not to consider urgently the other problems and how to fund measures to solve them, we shall know that their priorities are badly skewed.
Those mums out there rely on the House of Commons to look after their interests. Those dads who are at risk when their children are ferried about the country, sometimes in substandard vehicles, need to know that the Government will do something about it. If they do not, if they do not follow some of the charter lines that have already been set out, we shall know that, as in so many things, the Government's commitment to change is simply a public relations exercise which has little genuine concern behind it.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on securing a debate on this important subject. It is a pleasure to respond to the points that she made. As of this morning, I am the longest serving Minister in the Department. I grant you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is a dubious distinction, but one of which I might as well be proud.
Much of what the hon. Lady said was from the heart and contained a great deal of common sense. I hope that she will find, in the next few minutes, that we agree about a great deal and that we share concerns about a great deal. I hope that I can expose some of our ambitions, either stated or implicit, in this area and some of the difficulties that we face in achieving, as quickly as she and any reasonable person would want, some of the objectives that she outlined. In most senses, this is not a political debate, but I hope that she will forgive me if I chide her on one aspect of her speech which I thought slightly devalued the otherwise important comments that she made.
It simply is not good enough for the hon. Lady to make the sweeping assertion—as she did in relation to the Transport Research Laboratory, the vehicle inspectorate, the traffic area offices and the operator licensing provisions —that our pursuit of greater efficiency, greater economy and better value for the taxpayers' money must necessarily be at the expense of safety. She knows that that is not true. She is too experienced not to be aware that tremendous economies can be achieved in the services that we operate on behalf of taxpayers, while the cornerstone of our improvements remains that safety standards will not be compromised.
The hon. Lady referred to the 38,264 inspections that the vehicle inspectorate carried out last year. I was not briefed on this specific point, because I had not seen it as central to minibus safety, but I recognise that it is germane to the argument. She knows that the statistics show not only that the vehicle inspectorate is doing a good job in identifying people who run inadequate vehicles but that


more tests are being carried out. We do not simply test at random. Inspectors target vehicles that are likely to be at fault.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who takes a keen interest in transport matters, confirms that inspectors target not recently registered, clearly up to date and modern vehicles but those that might be suspect and, to their credit, they are identifying faults on a proportion that is unacceptably large— I agree with the hon. Lady about that—and are taking action. We now have more action and less administration and bureaucracy in vehicle inspections.
I visited traffic area offices when preparing to take through the operator licensing provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I am satisfied that none of the Bill's provisions will lower the high standards of traffic area offices' work. We are reducing the administrative tail of such organisations. It is scandalous that whenever we propose to abolish clearly redundant, excessive and burdensome regulations or make any economies in the public service it is portrayed by Opposition Members as a lowering of safety standards.
The hon. Lady knows that that is not true. Like her, my children have been transported on minibuses. We all live in the same world: our children are all exposed to the same risks, and I do not want them to be more exposed to risk any more than she does. I am a motorist. I drive a car and am susceptible to risks from anyone coming towards me. It may be an oncoming motorist who kills me rather than a mistake of mine. I therefore approve of quality testing and safety testing.
What I do not approve of is the extraordinary assumption that we must accept whatever bureaucratic machinery we have and never alter it because to do so would be to betray safety standards or to imply a lowering of our concern over enforcement. The two are not compatible.
The same applies, if the hon. Lady does not mind me saying so, to the way in which police forces are reorganising traffic activities. I assure her that I have always found the commissioner constructive, helpful and concerned about traffic enforcement generally, and the service that the Metropolitan police provide is excellent.
I readily acknowledge that the hon. Lady knows better than me that more than 100,000 minibuses operate in private use and for hire or reward under the permit system or the public service vehicle operating licence. Many thousands of people and voluntary organisations involved with elderly or disabled people are heavily dependent on minibuses. We reckon that about 10 million passenger journeys a year are made by the voluntary sector, and minibuses are a real lifeline to elderly and disabled people and are extremely useful to young people. They are a safe form of transport.
TRL figures for 1987 showed that occupant casualty rates for minibus passengers per number of miles covered were about a third of those for car passengers. As the hon. Lady well knows, the safety of minibus travel compared with car travel has been confirmed by our statistics up to as late as 1993, the latest time for which they are available. But it would be quite wrong for us to say, and she was correct to infer this, that as a result everything is tine and we need not take more urgent action, because every road

death is one too many. As she said, it does not matter whether the life is young or old or from one's own family or from outside it: road deaths are a tragedy and must be avoided wherever possible.
Against that background, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced on Tuesday a package of measures to enhance minibus and coach safety through the fitting of seat belts. We need no persuading of the advantages of fitting seat belts, and we want to ensure that they are widely fitted as soon as possible.
At the Luxembourg Transport Council in June, my right hon. Friend called on the Commission to make early progress on proposals for the compulsory fitting of two-point belts to all new minibuses and coaches. He urged it to set the shortest possible timetable. I believe that that is the right longer-term solution. Vehicle standards are, properly, single market measures. Under the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, it would be nonsense to apply different safety standards across a Community of 12, and soon to be 16, which would have a devastating effect on our export capacity. I am convinced that we must look to Europe for construction and use standards. That is the way to ensure that everyone is properly protected.
The hon. Lady raised some interesting issues—for example, whether the two-point belt or cross-over belt is the more appropriate and whether the implications for fitment and wearing in coaches with high-back seats of different types of belts have been properly considered. All those issues are important and, in so far as they relate to construction and use, discussion of them should be held within the Community.

Mrs. Dunwoody: How long, how long?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady says, from a sedentary position, "How long, how long?". That is a line from Shakespeare, but, at this time of the morning, I am afraid that my brain, like yours, I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is sufficiently fuzzy not to be able to recall from whence. She asks a perfectly valid question: is not all this taking a great deal of time? It will take some time, because the process involves negotiation through the 12 nations of the Community. The hon. Lady is an experienced parliamentarian, especially in relation to some European aviation legislation. She knows exactly how long the timetable will be.
As the hon. Lady and many other people have high expectations of early action, as safety is concerned and as the transport of children is especially sensitive, we have said that we will seek the Commission's agreement for the Government to act ahead of the European Union, to ensure that all minibuses and coaches are fitted with belts when they are used specifically for the transport of children.
That is a fairly straightforward proposition. It requires to be expanded and refined and we are working on the details now, but I assure the hon. Lady that there will be the widest possible consultation on the precise measures, once we have the Commission's views. We shall be taking full account of the concerns of users and of the voluntary groups that own minibuses, which have made such a major contribution to mobility.
I wish that I could give the hon. Lady a firm timetable for that programme today. The hon. Lady knows, from her experience of government, that I cannot do so, but I can


assure her that it is a matter of the utmost urgency. Subject to the views of the Commission, we hope to go out to consultation this autumn.
We shall also be amending the regulations that permit three children to share a double seat, in cases where seat belts are fitted—the three-for-two rule, with which she is familiar. There is no point in having seat belts fitted if they are not worn. We want children and adults to wear them. Frankly, I know that we have the support of parents, schools, voluntary groups and all those concerned with children's safety when we say so.
Meanwhile, may I take this opportunity to stress one or two matters that perhaps deserve a wider audience. There is nothing to prevent manufacturers from fitting belts to new vehicles in response to customer demand. It is already happening with line-built minibuses, and in most cases there is nothing to stop retro-fitting of belts to existing vehicles. Regulations have been in place since 1987, setting a standard for the fitment of vehicles, and I urge manufacturers and operators to take advantage of them.
There is another condition, called market forces—something that the Labour party often derides. How can market forces work in this respect? I received a letter the other day from a parent, who complained that the local school had transported children in a minibus that did not have seat belts. I wrote back—as the constituency Member of Parliament, rather than a Transport Minister—and confirmed that the school was acting perfectly lawfully, but that if parents were not prepared to allow their children to be transported in a minibus without seat belts they should make that absolutely clear to the head teacher. I sent the head teacher a copy of the letter.
The school rightly took on board that important consideration and I am sure that when it hires minibuses again, the first question it will ask the owner of the minibus, or the person hiring it, is, "Does this minibus have seat belts?" I hope that all those people involved in the occasional hiring of minibuses will do that, so that retro-fitting becomes more rapid and more organisations demand it. When they do, the market will provide it.
In summary, Tuesday's announcement constituted a major step forward for road safety, initially for children and, as soon as possible thereafter, for the public at large.
I know that the hon. Lady's interest goes much further than construction standards. Perhaps it is worth spelling out some of the background on minibus operation. Vehicles that carry nine or more passengers for a payment are classed as PSV vehicles and are obviously subject to operator licensing. The purposes of the system are to keep up the standards of commercial bus and coach operations, impose entry requirements that must be satisfied before a licence is granted, and control operators' performance and compliance with road traffic law.
In 1977, under the then Labour Government, it was recognised that for many non-commercial concerns that system was totally inappropriate, but they would be caught by it if, for example, they collected money from a scout troop by any charge for the trip being undertaken. For that reason, legislation exempted from PSV licensing arrangements minibuses used by voluntary organisations. The provisions of the Minibus Act 1977 were updated in 1987 and extended the types of groups that might apply for permits. They may be issued to organisations concerned

with education, religion, social welfare, recreation, or other activities of benefit to the community. It is worth pointing out that organisations that have not sought to obtain permits, but operate under those circumstances, are strongly advised to do so.
As the hon. Lady knows, the Secretary of State designated identifiable national voluntary organisations that can issue permits only to their own branches and affiliate organisations, such as the Scout Association. The traffic commissioner acts as an anchor point for the issue of permits to other eligible local organisations.
About 44,000 permits have been issued since 1987, and the organisations covered by the permit scheme are responsible bodies that—as I am sure the hon. Lady agrees —can be trusted to take proper care over driving standards, and safety and vehicle maintenance.
Permit buses must comply with the same construction and equipment standards as other small buses and must be tested annually for road worthiness from the end of their first year. They are also subject to spot checks at the roadside by vehicle inspectors, and to prohibitions if a vehicle is found to be unfit, or likely to become unfit, for service. Permits will be withdrawn if the Traffic Commissioner is not satisfied by the standard of vehicle maintenance.
In a special exercise in the eastern traffic area this year, vehicle examiners inspected a sample of permit holders, just to establish that permits were applicable for the type of operation; that the vehicles were being properly maintained; and that the permit holder was aware of responsibilities in the operation and driving of the permit vehicle. I can let the hon. Lady see some more of the detail of that exercise. I am pleased to say that the results, in relation to the operation of the permit system, were very satisfactory.
Driver hours is another subject on which there has been much discussion. At present, minibuses used in the United Kingdom for private purposes, such as by schools and voluntary groups, are not required to have a tachograph, or to comply with drivers' hours regulations. The argument is that the driving of the minibus is usually only a small part of what the driver does, and the time spent driving is usually short.
When driving is not the main activity and relatively short periods of driving are undertaken, restricting drivers' hours would not be sensible, or effective. Any limitation would need to try to cover working, as opposed to driving, time. That would be extraordinarily difficult and impossible to enforce, not to mention the fact that requiring tachographs to be fitted and used on minibuses would also be expensive and burdensome. By definition, it would restrict the valuable use of minibuses, without making their use safer.
The reality is something on which the hon. Lady expounded and on which I have the same difficulty as her. That is that it is virtually impossible to control what people do prior to driving a vehicle. The vital message that we have to get across is that one should not drive when one is tired and that one should take regular breaks if one is going to undertake a long journey. Please, will people consider using a second driver, where sustained periods of driving might occur, especially at the end of the day?
The hon. Lady mentioned the tragic incidents of which we have all been aware recently. It is not appropriate or right for me to expound on those in any detail, but she and I are both concerned about the sort of situation in which an


adult takes a group on a day out. The adult might get up early, drive a long way, work with the children all day —keeping stragglers in line, ensuring that they keep their money together, seeing them through the attractions, and giving them a meal in the evening—and then drive the coach again. One must wonder whether it is not appropriate to take a second adult along when one contemplates that burden, just to share the driving load. The hon. Lady is right—the key is to be sensible and to understand just how important it is not to be below par when one is going to drive many other people.
We fully share the hon. Lady's concern about minibus safety. As she knows, we are to improve the driver training regime and public consultation has recently been concluded on a number of issues arising from the second EC directive on driver licensing.
This is an important issue and the hon. Lady's enthusiasm for early action is understandable. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Department is equally committed to early improvement in standards and that the actions announced this week by my right hon. Friend will go a long way towards achieving that.

Space Industry

11 am

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), the immediate past Minister with responsibility for space, who has given sterling service to the country and the Government over several years. I remember canvassing for him in the hills of Derbyshire during the by-election at which he entered Parliament in 1986. I am sure that we all wish him well for the future.
I also welcome to the Dispatch Box the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), and congratulate him on his well-deserved appointment to the Front Bench. I hope that he will always remember that his first debate was on space and that that subject will always be at the top of his list of priorities. I hope that he will find my speech helpful, certainly in setting a new direction for space policy and maximising the United Kingdom's potential in that area. He will find that the space community throughout the world will welcome his appointment and be willing to assist him on every occasion. Perhaps one or two European aspects of my speech will strike a chord with him at this early stage in his ministerial career.
I am delighted to have secured this opportunity to raise the subject of the UK's position in the space industry, an issue that has not been properly debated in the House since 1988. It is also apposite as this week there have been widespread celebrations to mark the 25th anniversary of the moon landing, a remarkable feat for mankind. However, several matters need to be examined urgently in relation to UK space policy, not least because in September 1995 the European Space Agency Ministers' conference will look at the long-term programme, which will obviously be important for European space programmes for the next couple of decades.
The European Space Agency is now producing positioning papers and it is important that the UK participates not only in the ministerial but in the preparatory work. Without the assurance of a modern national space programme, the UK will at best be able only to react to other proposals. Until now we have depended heavily on ESA, and if we are to ensure that the ministerial meeting approves programmes that are useful to the UK, we need to be active in defining what we want to achieve from space activities.
The policies that we laid down in 1988 and the funding level are not producing the results that we intended, and there is evidence that they could even be damaging the chances of our space industry becoming competitive in a very competitive market. It is also urgent because we now have to take into account important new players in the European space scene, particularly the European Commission which has a potentially significant new role both as a user of space systems—earth observation is just one example—and, complementary to ESA, to help European industry benefit from large new marketing opportunities in, for example, navigation.
ESA was set up some 30 years ago to create a European space industry and to ensure that Europe could gain a foothold in an area that was then dominated by the space war between the USA and the USSR. At that time my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade represented


the UK as a junior Minister and showed his great ability in conducting the negotiations that established ESA. It would now be most helpful if the President could again inspire the UK to a leadership role in reconstructing ESA to meet the needs of Europe for the next 20 or 30 years.
Until the mid-1980s, ESA was a great success. It helped to establish the European communications satellite industry, notably in the UK, which led to the creation of Inmarsat and Eutelsat, both of which were originally based on ESA satellites. It also provided the basic industrial infrastructure leading to the successful military communications satellites of which the latest Skynet 4 version has been bought by NATO in preference to US military satellites.
ESA also led in the production of meteorological satellites which are the basis of Eumetsat and the daily pictures on TV weather reports. Those technologies have led to the new generation of earth observation satellites, especially ERS 1 with its all-weather observation capabilities for which the radar was developed in the United Kingdom. ESA also has highly regarded international scientific programmes for astronomy and solar system science in which the United Kingdom's scientific community and our industries play an important role: For example, the space probe Giotto was built in the UK.
I am sad to say that the UK took only a small part in the final ESA success, the Ariane launcher. I say "sad" because Ariane is now winning over half the commercial launches that are put out to global competition. That success is bringing considerable benefit to the industries in those countries that decided to take a share. Since we use Ariane launchers for Skynet and pay a share of the cost of the launches that are required by ESA, we are contributing to work which largely goes to benefit space industries in countries other than our own.
However, I must not fail to acknowledge our contribution to the manufacture of the very accurate guidance system for Ariane and also the SPELDA system that separates the satellites as they are released into space. Those are impressive British accomplishments. During the 1980s, ESA decided to pursue a policy of seeking full autonomy in space for Europe and particularly for man in space, an aspect on which we have relied on US co-operation. The programme that was decided upon included continuing co-operation with the United States through the newly proposed space station in which Japan and Canada were also to be partners. But autonomy in putting man in space was to be achieved through an ambitious space plane—Hermes. Furthermore, this was to be achieved by the year 2000.
That ambitious programme was approved at the ESA ministerial meeting in The Hague in 1987, notwithstanding the fact that it required a doubling of the ESA annual budget. The UK refused to join on the ground that it was an expensive endeavour to achieve what the USA and the USSR had achieved 20 years earlier. In the aftermath of the demise of the USSR and one or two dramatic failures in the NASA programme, especially the failure of Challenger, money for space activities was put under more political scrutiny both in the United States and in the European countries.
NASA has had difficulties in funding the international space station, even with the new involvement of Russia. ESA Ministers found the escalating costs of ESA and especially Hermes unacceptable. Consequently, ESA has abandoned Hermes and is seeking a programme within, at best, level funding which Ministers might approve next year.
I have outlined that to show that ESA has served Europe well, but that it now appears to have lost its way in the prevailing political circumstances. Since we have funded most of our space activities through ESA, the uncertainties surrounding the programme and its direction is damaging to us and to our industries. That is why I am encouraging my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and our new Minister to renew interest in ESA and to help to seek a new role that will suit our purposes as well as those of the rest of Europe.
We need strong political leadership, because our refusal to support the man in space programme and the subsequent decisions to leave our funding at the existing level, has left us outside the main stream of ESA thinking. It is ironic that being proved right about Hermes has not endeared us to those who have tried and failed.
Due to our perceived attitude to space, the United Kingdom has lost much of its influence, not only in ESA, but in all parts of the world. That does not affect only the British national space centre; the effect inevitably rubs off on British industry, too. More to the point, the fact that we have placed a ceiling on expenditure, which is committed for the next few years, means that we cannot join new programmes, however meretricious, except, possibly, at a derisory level. That is bound to be damaging to our industries and is hardly likely to leave us in an influential position of forming new ESA policies, if we cannot participate.
I shall mention just three cases in point. We cannot join the new ESA communications technology programme, even though our industries are prepared to contribute 50 per cent. of the funding themselves—unique in Europe. We are offering a very small contribution to the ESA share of the second generation meteorological satellite, which will damage our industries' chance of taking part in the operational programme, for which satellites will be needed for the next 20 years.
ESA is starting to examine the next century's generation of launchers, in the Festive programme, in which our ideas on the horizontal take-off and landing launcher or alternative systems have been world leaders. A share in that would be of major benefit to our capabilities in the areas of advanced materials, avionics, software and to all markets in which we presently have some eminence. If we cannot participate in all those programmes, we shall severely damage our competitiveness and, perhaps, the existence of the many capabilities which our ESA contributions have helped us to create over the years.
The situation is made worse by the fact that the modest national programme, which the Department of Trade and Industry has always funded to help our industries to achieve success in the applications market, is being seriously eroded over the next few years. The space industry is no longer what we instinctively think—or rather thought—it to be. Its constituency has widened, so that many companies, such as those in the service industry, now use space as one component in their portfolio of activities.
They will not be able to operate successfully unless there is some judicious, planned and sustained Government direction and investment.
It is often said that industry is primarily responsible for making itself competitive. I know that our own industry accepts that challenge, but in partnership with Government, as I have outlined. This week, we have seen the merger of our largest companies, Matra Marconi and British Aerospace Space Systems, bringing together their complementary capabilities, which will put the single company in a much better position to compete effectively.
I welcome that change, but I recognise that we have smaller companies with space capabilities, such as those represented by ASTOS, based in my constituency. Those companies also need to understand the sense of purpose in Government policy if they are to thrive. It is, after all, the smaller companies that are likely to achieve the growth in jobs which we all want to see as one of the products of our space policy. A rethink of space policy on what we want to achieve and how we want to achieve it is necessary and necessary now. The policies of 1988 may have been right then, but they do not seem to be right now.
I mentioned earlier the entry of new players on the space scene. When I visited Brussels last week, with colleagues from the parliamentary space committee, we were delighted to hear how the Commission has come to recognise that there are a number of things which it can do to help European industry to achieve benefit from space activities. The Commission is already the biggest single user of satellite earth observation data.
In recent years, DO VI, the agricultural directorate, has come to use those data for assessing crop yields, and I especially look forward to it using the data to help combat common agricultural policy fraud. That alone could ultimately represent major financial savings to the European Union on the escalating costs of detecting fraud. Several directorates use data for dealing with environmental problems in the European Union and, in developing countries, for example, for mapping and exploration of natural resources.
The Commission is also conducting with ESA an important study on how we can handle and distribute earth observation data in Europe to benefit those who can use the information. By the end of the century, there will be enormous quantities of data pouring down from earth observation satellites which are already planned. We need to agree how we can best handle that data in Europe, but eventually, we shall need co-operation on a global scale very much as was envisaged at the environment conference in Rio.
The Commission is also making progress in reaching agreement in Europe on satellite navigation. In that area, there are massive opportunities for our industries; airlines, ships, cars, and lorries. Europe has a strong involvement at present in satellite navigation systems and we need to ensure that we at least maintain that position and that we do not lose out to the United States or Japan in the future.
There are other areas requiring Commission involvement: negotiating for a level playing field for our satellite industries and for the Ariane launcher; regulation of satellite communication in Europe; and negotiating, especially with the USA, on future mobile systems. Those would be useful negotiations which require action at a European level.
I hope that I have given the House the flavour of my argument—we have an urgent need to review space policy.
We have important interests to protect and some exciting new fields to explore and exploit. Our level of funding for national programmes and our contributions to ESA should not be related to some historical level of funding. At the international level, and especially in ESA, we need to show how our policies of favouring space applications, with which many countries have come to share, can bring benefit through the adoption of market-led policies.
At the same time, we need to support our industries where they face competition, not least from United States companies, which have received support from their own Government. In due course, we may be able to persuade other Governments to reduce their support, but I am afraid that we are not there by a long way yet.
Space is no longer the sole province of the space enthusiast, although I hope that those enthusiasts will continue to point the way not least for our children, for whom space is a great incentive to study science and technology. I have tried to indicate some of the economic and social benefits which space activities may bring to earth. With the fresh thinking in other countries, it is the right moment for us to review our policies and re-engage in international planning for space activities, which can achieve our objectives. It would be a great pity if the 25th anniversary of the Apollo landing also heralded the abandonment of space by the UK because of its apathy towards policy and future planning and expenditure.
In September, ESA will be present at the Farnborough air show for the first time in 15 years. I know that 'we welcome it to that venture. The UK will also host the first European parliamentarians conference on space. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to send the right messages to ESA, to our industrialists and especially to that conference, so that we can again lead Europe on the formation of space policy as we did 30 years ago.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Taylor): It is a particular pleasure to reply to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) is a great expert in these matters; she has pursued the subject of space with great expertise and knowledge since arriving in the House. I admit to the House that it is a subject with which I am somewhat less familiar.
Certainly, I did not expect to have the honour of replying to my hon. Friend until a short time before she got to her feet. However, that is one of the excitements of assuming a ministerial office and learning about the portfolios that one is honoured to have at one's disposal.
My hon. Friend made a timely contribution, because there is no doubt that space is a subject of enormous interest to British industry, which she stressed, and, of course, for reasons which any cursory glance at the television would show, it is of great interest to the British public and to the public around the world.
The extraordinary events that we are seeing on our television screens are the result of much hard work in the past by industry. Therefore, the timing of the debate is particularly appropriate. It has been a long time since the previous debate on space in the House, which I am told took place in 1988. I am delighted to have this opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend said, yesterday we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the first manned landing on the moon.
The Shoemaker-Levy comet, as it disintegrated and descended into Jupiter, has had the most extraordinary effect in galvanising public opinion behind what can be achieved by the technology that is available to us in monitoring such events.
We should draw attention to the role that the Hubble space telescope has played in monitoring the Shoemaker-Levy comet and to the remarkable corrective action that was taken last year on the telescope to enable us now to have a wealth of new information for analysis by the scientific and astronomical community worldwide. We in Britain can take justifiable pride in the contribution that we have made to the telescope. It reminds us of the high regard in which our space science is held worldwide, which my hon. Friend underlined. We have an industry of which we can be proud.
We have also played our part in the European Space Agency's Ulysses mission, which has been able to observe the event from space. The British public should appreciate the role that we have played in ensuring that these dramatic events can be seen.
There are other examples, of course. In 1985, United Kingdom industry led the development of the Giotto mission to intercept Halley's comet. That proved to be an outstanding success. It was also United Kingdom industry which primed all ESA's satellite telecommunications missions which have flown so far.
Our major contribution to the Earth remote sensing satellites has provided—it will continue to do so—a wealth of data about the Earth and the development of its environment.
An important feature of these achievements is that they are possible through our collaboration with other nations in pursuing space activities. It is clear that no nation—not even a super-power—can afford the cost of major space missions in today's economic climate. Indeed, it may not be possible for a nation to try to meet the cost, given the exchange of know-how that can take place with other countries.
That was not always the case. America and Russia separately pioneered space programmes, for example. As my hon. Friend remarked, co-operation is now the order of the day. In that sense, the space race between nations is over and the old rivalry has been merged into co-operative ventures. We have only to have regard to the efforts to include Russian participation in the international space station to perceive how much progress has already been made in that context.
We are talking about new opportunities, but they will bring problems of adjustment. We are working closely with our partners in ESA in adapting the agency's operations to the new situation.
The other major change since the epic first steps on the moon has been the emergence of an identifiable commercial requirement for space telecommunications, broadcasting, navigation and business services. My hon. Friend mentioned all those items. Governments are no longer the only players in space, so our attention has turned to industry's need to be competitive in world space markets.
That is an important part of the responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry. My former responsibilities as parliamentary private secretary to the then

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave me a great insight into the wide range of input that comes from the science community. The Government's science budget is operated through research councils and is dealt with by the Cabinet Office.
The House will be aware that the Government's White Paper on competitiveness was a result of extensive consultation with industry, taking account of experience in identifying the key factors that determine success for world-class companies in the international market. Particular attention must be paid by the Government to creating a stable macro-economic environment and to fair and open markets. At the same time, our firms should be committed to innovation, quality and better management practice, for example. Space can be no exception to the need for partnership between industry and Government. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend underline that.
The House will wish to be told that the British National Space Centre is this morning consulting a broad cross-section of United Kingdom space companies on the full range of issues raised in the White Paper, including further development of an export strategy which involves our embassies, export promoters, trade specialists and, of course, industrial managers and market specialists.
My hon. Friend referred to telecommunications. Over the past year, the BNSC has worked closely with companies and trade associations to agree a strategy for that sector of the space industry, taking account of business opportunities, perceived barriers to markets and realistic levels of resource.
Companies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe meet various forms of tariff and non-tariff barriers in international markets. The Government are already heavily engaged in reducing those barriers. We work closely with the European Commission on conditions of trade.
The Government set out their civil space policy in a statement to the House in 1988, to which we have firmly adhered. Its key elements have been, and continue to be, to develop and introduce work space technologies. That is carried out principally by selective and cost-effective use of ESA programmes. Additionally, our national programme is aimed at achieving further exploitation of our investment in ESA, alongside necessary investment by industry.
The first priority objective of our policy has been, the development of Earth observation for environmental and long-term purposes. Again, my hon. Friend mentioned that. The second objective is to help industry to take advantage of past investment to make a commercial success of satellite communications and, where appropriate, to foster development of specialised telecommunications technologies for niche markets. The third objective is the maintenance of a sound space science base. I can assure my hon. Friend that our membership of ESA remains an important part of our space policy.
The space agency has undoubtedly been a source of many successful missions and developments in space technologies. The agency, with the United Kingdom as the lead participant, laid the foundations for today's thriving satellite telecoms sector. With the United Kingdom as a major proponent, the agency is at the forefront of Earth observation. Our contribution to the ESA science programme has been and still is extremely successful. The UK is playing a leading role in ESA's major contribution


to our understanding of the Earth's environment through the successful Earth remote sensing satellite and its future missions.
Our main driving force is to identify and develop the applications of Earth observation data that are available from ESA and other sources. We are working on potential commercial applications in agriculture, fishenes and transport, ensuring that UK companies are in a good position to exploit market opportunities. In addition, the BNSC is working with the EU, which is a potentially large user of environmental information. I was glad that my hon. Friend discussed co-operation between the various directors-general of the European Commission. It is an extremely important matter. I am delighted that the Commission is becoming effective in attempting to gain the most out of the ESA programme.
With regard to telecommunications, it is useful to look beyond ESA and to consider sources of investment and the Government's role. Over many years, we have led, or have been a major subcontractor, for a series of very successful telecommunications or communications satellites. As the perception of a real market for space telecommunications has matured, Governments have created European and international satellite operating companies.
European manufacturers, in a strong position from success in ESA programmes, have had considerable success in supplying those operators. As they are exposed to international competition for their service, those operators expect European industry to be competitive with United States suppliers.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I simply wanted to congratulate him, as an old friend, on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It gives me the greatest pleasure to be able to do that.

Mr. Taylor: That intervention has not thrown me, although I am delighted by my right hon. Friend's comments. I am grateful to him, and I hope that all his subsequent interventions on me at the Dispatch Box will be as kind and generous.
As I was saying, operators in the European industry must be competitive with United States suppliers. As markets for telecommunications, weather forecasting, broadcasting and so on have become more mature, opportunities have become available outside Europe.
Although there have been successes, European companies have faced fierce competition from American contractors who benefit from their large civil and defence home markets. Reductions in American defence expenditure have heightened that competition.
The United Kingdom and European industry acknowledges the need continually to improve competitiveness, particularly on time and price, to win a more significant slice of opportunities in Japan, China, Korea and elsewhere. The Department of Trade and Industry is very much behind those efforts.
Increased Government expenditure on research and development would have little direct effect. In these circumstances, we must be driven by British industry. Action by Government to create fair open markets, and by European industry to increase competitiveness, can have a decisive influence.
However, ESA programmes continue to provide real opportunities to develop scientific instruments, technology, components and applications relevant to

telecommunications and European markets. We contribute to a numbe. of aimed development programmes which are consistent with our overall policy.
Some emerging markets require a more global and more rapid response than ESA has traditionally provided. The market in satellite navigation is an example of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to that point and, in so doing, revealed her considerable knowledge of that sector.
The British National Space Centre is currently talking with ESA, Eurocontrol and the Department of Trade and Industry about the next generation of air traffic navigation systems in order to ensure European success in that market.

Mrs. Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important dimension to those discussions should include the European Commission, which can provide a larger overview of the requirements of the whole of the European Union, including the new members that we expect to join shortly?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Quite often in this country, we tend to want to downplay the Commission. However, when the Commission acts in such areas, it acts in Britain's interests to gain the maximum advantage from the high technology opportunities available and because, as I said earlier, it is essential that we have co-operation between countries and industries on a cross-national basis in this area.
No one country is capable of making a proper contribution. In such circumstances, it makes sense for the Commission to play a leading role. I have learnt a great deal from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham this morning about the way in which directorates-general are co-operating. Having assumed my ministerial responsibilities, it is clear that I will be greatly involved in those discussions.
New Ministers are always amused when they discover what is planned for them, in respect of which they have had no say. However, I understand that there will be discussions in the European Union in which I will take part. Those discussions will enable me to understand the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has made and to see just how effective co-operation between the directorates-general is.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are practical civil applications, across the board, from the knowledge that we are gaining from many of our space activities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to those points.

Mrs. Gillan: Perhaps I can hearten my hon. Friend by informing him that, in my discussions last week with Commission representatives, they were not backward in coming forward in praising the attitude, stance and capabilities of our United Kingdom representatives who, from time to time, find themselves in discussions across the directorates-general in respect of the subject that we are discussing today. I pass on to my hon. Friend the fact that the officials and representatives who are exposed to those directorates-general in the Commission are already very user-friendly towards the United Kingdom delegation.

Mr. Taylor: That is very valuable news, and I look forward to co-operating with my hon. Friend as I learn about the various activities.
My hon. Friend made an important point. It is not only officials who must be abreast of the developments; Members of Parliament must also be abreast of them. My hon. Friend referred to the recent visit of the parliamentary committee. There is also to be a conference of parliamentarians next year in this country. That is quite right and proper. We should take a lead. The parliamentary space committee, with which I had some dealings in my former existence in the Office of Public Service and Science, is impressive in the way in which it initiates discussions and takes a lead in its links with industry and the European Union.
I am delighted about the conference, and look forward to learning more about the timetable and planning and what we in the DTI can do to assist. It is important for us to be prodded by colleagues in the House who have a particularly specialist interest. As a Minister, I look forward to being prodded by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham in the months to come.
Co-operation between the Government and industry is very important. As I said, the BNSC is currently talking to ESA, Eurocontrol and the DTI about the next generation of air traffic navigation systems under the general heading of satellite navigation. A company in my constituency has been involved in those discussions.
It is important to try to get industry to come forward with research and development money and to enable the United Kingdom contribution to ESA to be the broadest possible across Government and industry. I am satisfied that the present provision in the national programme covers the key essentials, particularly in relation to our priority objectives in Earth observation.
Our emphasis is, and will be, on value for money both in the conduct of ESA's operations and in encouraging the most cost-effective approach to the provision of all space and space-related services.
My hon. Friend will know that, sometimes, with exciting issues such as space, which is easily capable of pulling the imagination with it, with the phenomenal things that we now see on television, there is sometimes a feeling that value for money and efficiency should not be part of the equation and that money should be spent because it is a good thing. I know that my hon. Friend does not share that view, and, as a Minister, I certainly do not share that view.
If something is as good as the whole technology which has driven forward the space programme, it is important for the Government to encourage industry to get the best value for money out of its activities and to concentrate on the matters that it can do best. In areas where resources in any one industry or country are inadequate, we must consider important prospects for the co-operation to which we have made reference.
There is to be a ministerial conference in late 1995. We are considering the future direction of the agency's programme. That conference is already an important part of the calendar. There will be many preparatory meetings on a bilateral and European basis, and the agenda will be of enormous importance. If I may be so bold in my first appearance at the Dispatch Box, I invite the parliamentary

space committee to put forward ideas well in advance. Perhaps the ministerial conference and the parliamentarians' conference, which my hon. Friend has informed the House about, could make sure that our agendas have rapprochement so that we do not end up trying to second-guess each other on the these matters.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous invitation to the parliamentary space committee. I am sure that my fellow officers of the committee will respond to it in due course. I am extremely heartened already to know that my hon. Friend is listening to, and is willing to take on board, fresh ideas, and expects, particularly in the run-up to September 1995, to participate in the discussions during the lead-in period to the EC ministerial conference.

Mr. Taylor: We will be in touch with my hon. Friend and the other officers of the parliamentary space committee to work out how we can best gain advantage from those two conferences.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there have been many significant changes to the political, defence and economic environment in recent years, although those changes have brought our partners in ESA closer to our position—that is, putting space to work—rather than creating a diversity of view. As events have turned out, our decision not to take part in a European manned space programme was sensible, although, of course, it might have been exciting. The main planks of our space policy remain valid, and, indeed, other ESA partners are realigning their policies more closely with United Kingdom objectives.
My hon. Friend mentioned several changes that are now taking place. I had also noticed the British Aerospace deal with Matra Marconi. I might even visit the company to see what progress is being made. I have already mentioned that I have Logica Space and Defence in my constituency, and it will be interesting to be able to visit that company as the Minister, as opposed to just an interested Back-Bencher. Such excitement lies in wait for me in the programme that I am now honoured to be able to follow from the Front Bench.
Overall, my industrial and business background tells me that nothing will be successful in this very exciting sector unless it is firmly based on a cost-effective programme. We must not try to do things that we cannot follow through. We have constraints on our budgets. My hon. Friend mentioned that the Department of Trade and Industry budget is not exactly expanding, but it is only part of a much broader Government contribution to the British National Space Centre, and other Departments are co-operating.
My hon. Friend mentioned the European Space Agency's telecommunications technology programme. The Government are contributing to some parts of the technology framework known as the ARTES. We are very open to influence by industry, perhaps to switch between the various subjects. At the moment, there are commitments to elements of ARTES 1 and 4, and we propose to join ARTES 9, but we will listen closely to representations. Overall, the co-operation between British industry and the Government is working well. Certainly, we are very keen indeed to see a proper and effective European Space Agency working in this very exciting sector.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Appropriation Act 1994
Land Drainage Act 1994
Trade Marks Act 1994
Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1994
Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994
Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994
Education Act 1994
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994
Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1994
Croydon Tramlink Act 1994
London Local Authorities Act 1994
London Docklands Development Corporation Act 1994
Hill Samuel Bank and United Dominions Trust Act
1994
Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Act 1994
Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure
1994
Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure 1994

Antarctic Treaty

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the Minister to his first outing on this brief. What finer start could there be to a ministerial career in the Foreign Office than to deal with the problems of Antarctica? I hope that it means that there is now a Minister for the Antarctic to give the topic the seriousness it deserves.
This is not the first time that I have raised matters concerning Antarctica, and I suspect that it will not be the last. I hope that, with his breakfast briefing this morning, the Minister read carefully my Adjournment debate in 1991 and those of other hon. Members on this matter. It is a matter to which several hon. Members keep returning for several reasons, mainly because we passionately want the Antarctic to be preserved as a zone of peace, as a place that is permanently protected environment, and also as a place that is free from mineral exploration and exploitation. The history of this subject is one of see-saws in many respects.
That continent has been appallingly exploited in the past, particularly for its mammal population. Apart from memories of Antarctic whaling, it has also been a place of great inspiration and great scientific discovery. The hole in the ozone layer was discovered through the work of the British Antarctic survey in Antarctica. The levels of lead pollution in our atmosphere were discovered by taking core samples of ice, and we were also able to measure increases in the carbon dioxide pollution of our atmosphere and global warming.
Many of us strongly opposed the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989. It was with great pleasure that we saw the environmental protection protocol agreed in Madrid in 1991. It was an enormous step forward. That protocol brought forward the concept of comprehensive environmental protection and a number of principles surrounding it. One was that the continent should be a place of environmental protection, including the protection of biological intrinsic wilderness and aesthetic and scientific values, and that there should be controls on and planning of all activities there, be they scientific activities, tourist activities or expeditions of various sorts.
Arguments about mineral activities have gone on for a long time. The protocol banned all mineral exploration and exploitation for 50 years. Consideration may be given after 25 years to what might happen in the future, but perhaps it is now time to think ahead and to try to create the concept for a permanent wilderness park rather than the idea that, at some point, there might be the possibility of exploration there.
The technology does not exist for mineral exploration or exploitation of the area, but clearly it could exist in time. The Madrid protocol went forward to establish the principles of the Antarctic Act which passed through the House not long ago. From that, we then looked forward to the passage of similar Acts of Parliament from the other 26 treaty countries. It is important for those Parliaments also to agree, because unless there is agreement by at least the original signatories to the 1959 treaty, the future of the Antarctic is in doubt.
There are flaws within the treaty system, and also within the Act, in that not every country in the world has signed the treaty. A country which was not a signatory to the treaty and the protocol and had not agreed to any of the environmental protection measures could, theoretically,


exploit the Antarctic. We hope that that will not be the case and that others will in time come forward and support the principles behind it.
We must look ahead to what we will do in that context, because the need to settle disputes is important. The continent is overridden with a series of often conflicting territorial claims from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile and a number of others. Nations have bases in Antarctica for scientific research, and the possibility of disputes surrounding either the claims or the activities of those bases is considerable.
The importance of moving quickly on that matter cannot be over-emphasised. In the discussions that took place about the Madrid protocol, there was agreement on environmental impact assessments of any activity going on there. There was also agreement on the conservation of fauna and flora, including, for example, the removal of all dogs from the Antarctic from April 1994. I understand that the dogs have all been removed, with the huskies at the British base going to Canada.
It is important that there is an emphasis on waste disposal and management. Greenpeace expeditions to the Antarctic and its examination of British, American, French, Russian and other bases showed that the standards of waste management varied greatly. As it is an area of low precipitation, and it is obviously a cold part of the world, biodegradation is very slow. Pollution is very much to the fore.
The protocols on waste disposal and management are important, as is the protocol on marine pollution. Sewage, oil or garbage seeping into the sea will not self-destruct quickly, and damage can be caused by that. There is also the question of protected areas within Antarctica, including the whale sanctuary which is very popular and is wholly to be welcomed.
We must now look at the future of the Madrid protocol and where we go from here. If the protocol is to mean anything—all the words in it were, in many senses, in response to pressure from environmental groups around the world which, with popular support, had a vision that the continent could be preserved as a zone of peace and a protected zone—something must be done.
It is not enough to pass the Act through the House. The Minister will be aware from reading the concluding debate on Report and Third Reading of the Antarctic Bill that a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House expressed concern that the passage of the Act was not enough, and that the date in which it came into operation internationally was crucial.
Within the treaty is the idea of the establishment of a treaty secretariat, and that is very important. At the moment, each time there is a consultative meeting, the host nation becomes the organiser of the next meeting. There is no permanent secretariat, but a rotating secretariat which is handed from Government to Government. That is not a particularly satisfactory way of going on. There are different standards of administration and different amounts of resources are placed in the hands of the secretariat. There is not an on-going repository of information or advice on Antarctica which can be readily accessed by different groups around the world.
The 28th Antarctic treaty consultative meeting was held in Kyoto in April, and it established the transitional

environment working group as an interim step towards the eventual committee of environmental protection which is required in the protocol. The next host nation, I understand, will be Korea, which is undertaking the work of preparing for that next meeting.
There is no permanent secretariat, but around the world there is a wealth of information and knowledge concerning Antarctica—much of it good, much benign. But there are also people around the world who have a less benign attitude towards Antarctica. They may see the possibilities of mineral exploration or exploitation in the future and there are those who may want to undertake tourist visits to Antarctica. The protocol and treaty specifically include the possibility of tourist visits and methods of tourism within Antarctica, but it is very important that those are controlled.
Visits to Antarctica by bases and the methods of administration of the bases which share information and standards concerning waste disposal and other equally important issues must be dealt with. We then have to look at who will permanently host the secretariat in the future, and it is important that we recognise what has happened up to now. There has been a changed attitude and atmosphere towards Antarctica, and people all around the world understand and accept it as a zone of peace and of scientific research. There must be an agreement on the administration of policies and a repository for information and advice.
I understand that the commanders in a number of the bases in Antarctica which belong to different countries have still not received copies of the protocol, and do not know what is in it. I am not saying that specifically about British bases, but other countries' bases certainly do not have it.
We must look at a location for the secretariat. There are five gateway nations to Antarctica—Chile, Argentina, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. They have enormous interests in Antarctica, as do a number of other countries, including the United States, Britain, Russia, Japan, Germany and others which have had bases there or which will have bases in the future.
I should be interested to hear the Minister's reply and his analysis of British strategy towards the southern oceans, because there has been a welcome change in attitude concerning Antarctica. However, there has also been the declaration of a zone of economic activity around South Georgia. How does that square with the attitude towards Antarctica as a zone of peace, rather than of exploration? I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
I would also like to know what the attitude of the Minister is towards the siting of the secretariat, because it is essential that that functions for the effective application of the environmental protocol. I understand that Britain is blocking the offer by Argentina to host the secretariat in Buenos Aires. Argentina is a gateway nation, has had a base in Antarctica for a very long time and has undertaken scientific research there. The credibility of the British involvement in Antarctica could be seriously damaged if the blocking tactic continues.
Surely it is time to recognise that if agreement can be reached among the treaty nations—which apparently it can —on siting the secretariat in Argentina, that is where it should go. All the progress that has been made on environmental protection could be held up by the intransigence of Britain, which says that it does not want


the secretariat in Argentina. I assume that that is because of the disputes over the Falklands, but it works in the opposite direction as well. Argentina clearly disagrees with Britain about the Falklands. We heard in a debate on Latin America last night that there is now a great deal of understanding and discussion between the British and Argentine Governments. We heard that from the lips of the Minister at 2.30 this morning.
To understand the importance of siting the secretariat, we have to recognise that, if there is no co-ordinating body, much of what has been achieved, including environmental protection measures as well as the guidelines on tourist activity, which are very important, will be put at risk.
If we wanted to keep the Antarctic absolutely pure, the ideal solution would be to stop anyone other than authorised scientists and those working research stations going there. It would be difficult to do that. It is probably well nigh impossible to prevent tourist visits to Antarctica. People will want to go there. Indeed, many of us would welcome the opportunity to visit such a pristine and beautiful place.
If there are to be tourists, their activities must be controlled and we must have an absolute guarantee from tour operators about flights and the like, about how tourists will behave, that their rubbish will be taken home with them, that if they go by sea, suitable vessels which will be unlikely to founder on ice or rock will be used and that some form of rescue will be available.
The horrifying crash of the Air New Zealand aeroplane is all too recent in memory. We must recognise the problems of getting people back from Antarctica if a disaster happens. Operations would have to be of high quality and run by extremely experienced people. That means that guidelines on tourist activities must be drawn up. Potential tour operators and tourists will have to understand what they can and cannot do.
Tourists may also take part in land-based tourism. Bases might be opened for guests to stay for a few days, weeks or whatever to experience what life is like in the Antarctic. Unless there is agreement on the siting of the secretariat, the administration of the tourist protocol and the arguments surrounding tourism will be difficult to resolve. II look forward to the Minister saying that Britain is prepared to agree to the siting and establishment of the secretariat with all speed. That would be a signal to countries that have not yet succeeded in ratifying the treaty. I understand that several are still in the process of ratification and that by this time next year more than half the treaty nations should have achieved ratification through their national Parliaments. The faster we move, the more rapidly we can protect the Antarctic.
The Minister will undoubtedly tell me that there are lots of problems surrounding the siting of the secretariat and that other places should be considered. If a treaty system is established which requires a secretariat, it has to go somewhere. It happens for every treaty. When the United Nations was established, there was enormous discussion about where the permanent home should be. Eventually, for better or worse, for good or ill, it was agreed that it should go to New York, and in New York it has been ever since. Some people might not like it, but it has gone there.
Other secretariats have gone to other places. It must be said that, mainly, international secretariats of organisations have been sited in Europe or North America. It is important to recognise that the Antarctic treaty secretariat does not have to be sited in an English-speaking country. It could be

one of the South American countries. It would seem that Argentina leas a strong claim to house the secretariat, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is a possibility.
The criteria for housing the secretariat have to be neutrality, commitment, research programme and capability. While there are obviously judgments to be made on those matters, it seems that a country that is one of the nearest—there might be discussion as to whether Chile or Argentina is absolutely the nearest to Antarctica—has a claim. In view of Argentina's attitude to Antarctica and support for the treaty process, it seems to fulfil all the qualifications and to be capable of housing the secretariat. It would be welcome and helpful to site it in Argentina.
I shall conclude, to give the Minister sufficient time to reply. Perhaps he will be good enough to give way if I seek to intervene to clarify some points.
We should recognise how far we have come on Antarctica. If it had not been for the work of environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace International, including the surveys of the bases, the campaigning work throughout the world to protect the whales and mammal species in Antarctica and the campaign to include the sea bed in the treaty—I hope that it will be included at a later date when unfinished business has been completed—we would not have come so far. Greenpeace International in particular is to be congratulated on the work it has done. I hope that it will be able to continue.
The inclusion of the idea of a whale sanctuary around the Antarctic is wholly welcome. It recognises the danger to mammals in the sea and the horrific stories that have passed into legend about how the whales have been treated. They are supremely intelligent beings capable of communicating and travelling over many thousands of miles. They are enormous creatures. They have been hunted to near extinction in Antarctica. We hope that those days are behind us, but the problem is that the whale sanctuary has to be policed. We need a policing system to ensure that countries do not try to break into the sanctuary and illegally take whales.
In the past, many countries have taken whales. They include Japan, with its so-called scientific whaling. The Soviet Union lied about the number of whales it caught in the region. The whale sanctuary will also promote an understanding of the need for the overall protection of the whale species. Whales migrate vast distances. Perhaps while the Minister is about it he will make it clear that the British Government deplore the Norwegian attitude to whaling and Norway's apparent determination to continue the brutality of killing whales in the northern hemisphere. I hope that we can move to total protection of the whale species throughout the world. That would be very welcome indeed.
We have come an awfully long way on the issue of Antarctica. Some of us have spent a lot of time on it. We shall not give up merely because we do not yet have a siting for the secretariat. We want to see it sited and the treaty brought into operation. We want the continent to be protected. Above all, it would surely be a message to everyone in the world that, if we can protect that continent and learn so much from its natural history, we can change attitudes to protecting our natural world, in which we need to survive.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on obtaining the Adjournment debate today. He is right. He impinged on my breakfast reading this morning. Listening to his speech I almost thought I was back as Minister for science.
I welcome this opportunity to debate further the matter of Antarctica. For a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Islington, North, the issue is fresh in the mind of the House. The Antarctic Bill successfully passed all its stages on 16 June and received Royal Assent only two weeks ago, on 15 July. It was an important milestone in the United Kingdom's commitment to the Antarctic. It was only the third time since 1967 that Parliament has enacted legislation for Antarctica.
The Act makes the necessary changes to UK law to enable us to ratify the 1991 environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty. We hope to be in a position to do so by the end of the year, and certainly well before the next Antarctic treaty consultative meeting scheduled for Seoul in May 1995. The Government are currently working actively on the necessary subsidiary legislation.
The protocol cannot enter into force until it is ratified by all 26 consultative parties to the treaty. So far, nine have done so. It is telling that only two of the nine have so far enacted the necessary enabling legislation—legislation akin to the United Kingdom Antarctic Act 1994.
In terms of enacting legislation to implement the protocol, we remain in the vanguard of the treaty parties. That is fitting, for the United Kingdom has been intimately involved with the protocol since the early days of its gestation. Along with Chile, the United Kingdom called in 1989 for the convening of a meeting to negotiate provisions for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment. What was to emerge from those negotiations was the Madrid protocol, a document developed by the United Kingdom and some like-minded countries.
The environmental protocol is the most significant new element of law introduced into the Antarctic treaty system since the adoption of the Antarctic treaty in 1959. It provides the framework for environmental protection, which was lacking in the treaty. It has, in effect, brought the treaty system up to date and negated any calls which might have been made to carry out a review of the treaty.
The protocol was designed specifically with flexibility in mind. It is a relatively simple framework document. It bans mining for 50 years, unless there is a consensus to do otherwise; it contains general environmental principles; it establishes a new institution; the committee for environmental protection and it sets out inspection and emergency contingency procedures.
The detailed nuts and bolts of the protocol are contained in five annexes, which deal with environmental impact assessment, the conservation of flora and fauna, waste disposal and management, the prevention of marine pollution and protected areas. The annexes can be amended by relatively simple procedures to take account of changing environmental needs. That is important.
We are obliged under article 16 of the protocol to negotiate a further annexe, or annexes, on liability for damage. Those negotiations are under way, and the United Kingdom has played a most active role in the meetings to date.
Clearly, the priority facing the Antarctic treaty parties is the timely entry into force and implementation of the protocol. We will give what encouragement and assistance we can to other parties to ratify soon. I hope that the passage of the Antarctic Act will be one such sign of encouragement.
Implementation rests at both international and national levels. At their 16th meeting in Bonn in 1991, the treaty parties pledged to implement the provisions of the protocol, pending its entry into force, to the greatest extent practical. Individually, many have taken that commitment to heart. Collectively, the parties have, disappointingly, been somewhat slower.
One crucial element to getting the protocol up and running would be the committee for environmental protection—an advisory group to the treaty parties. At the recent treaty meeting in Kyoto, the United Kingdom was to the fore in urging parties to introduce an interim committee to carry out the functions of the committee. We were pleased that the challenge was taken up and a transitional environmental working group will begin work at the next consultative meeting in Seoul. It is a crucial step towards full implementation.
On the national level, the United Kingdom's main Antarctic operator, the British Antarctic Survey, has taken rapid steps to carry out the provisions of the protocol in practice. The BAS has carried out environmental impact assessments of key operations, conducted waste disposal audits, introduced oil spill contingency plans and trained staff to deal with such emergencies and begun a clean-up operation of abandoned British bases in Antarctica.
I must once again accord the Government's thanks to all concerned at the successful adoption of the Antarctic Act. Especially our thanks go to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who sponsored the Bill in this House, and to Viscount Montgomery for sponsoring the Bill in another place.
If the provisions of the protocol are tough, those of the Antarctic Act are equally if not more so. The drafters of the legislation placed considerable emphasis on how best to ensure that United Kingdom nationals in Antarctica and British expeditions to Antarctica comply fully with their obligations under the protocol. That is achieved by a series of tough permitting provisions.
All British expeditions, vessels and ships to Antarctica will require a permit from the Secretary of State. Similarly, British bases in Antarctica will need a permit. Permits will be needed by those undertaking any mineral resource activity and, lastly, permits will be needed to take or interfere with wildlife or enter protected areas.
Overall, the provisions of the Antarctic Act are tough. To ensure that there are no loopholes in the system, we shall be discussing with the dependent territories how to extend the legislation to them. That is particularly important for our territories adjacent to Antarctica—the Falkland Islands and South Georgia—which act as gateway ports to the continent.
I shall take up one point that the hon. Gentleman raised in detail with respect to the fishing zone around South Georgia. The zone is fully consistent with the Antarctic treaty and the Antarctic fisheries convention and has as its sole purpose the more effective implementation of fish conservation measures taken under that convention.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister said that the Government were in discussion with dependent territories—the


Falklands and South Georgia—about the operations of the Antarctic Act. Can he be more specific? Does he mean that there are discussions about how they might be implemented, or about whether the Act applies to them in its entirety?

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he will realise that my briefing is recent. I shall write to him on the detail of the issues he has raised so that we can be absolutely clear.
We have a major opportunity—through, for example, port state jurisdiction—to ensure that vessels or aircraft going to Antarctica from our territories can comply fully with our obligations under the protocol and we shall enforce the measures keenly.
The Antarctic treaty secretariat took up much of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The introduction of a secretariat for the Antarctic treaty would also be of major assistance to the implementation of the environmental protocol.
We have long urged that such a secretariat be set up. Indeed, in the longer term, a secretariat is crucial to the successful operation of the Antarctic treaty system. It is, however, important to stress that the site of the secretariat —I remind the House that we are talking about what would be the most important institution within the Antarctic treaty system—is acceptable to all parties. Treaty parties are active in trying to resolve the matter and we will play an active part. It remains our hope that consensus will be reached before too long.
We still have some work to do to ensure that our domestic legislation is up and running. A number of sections of the Antarctic Act need regulations to be effective and these are now being drafted. They will be laid before the House as soon as possible.
We believe that, through our legislation, we have the ability to ensure that rigorous environmental standards are maintained in Antarctica. We shall do what we can to see that other parties to the treaty do the same.
The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of detailed issues about which I shall have to write to him. I thank him again for giving me the opportunity to make this speech today.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister has given a full reply to most of what I said, but the synthesis of what I was saying

is that there is a very strong offer from Argentina to site the Antarctic secretariat in Buenos Aires, and the British Government apparently find it unacceptable. Although the Minister said that there is search for a consensus, he needs to be slightly more forthcoming.
It is not good enough to say that we, as a country, are in the vanguard of the campaign for the protection of the Antarctic and to say that there has to be further discussion to obtain consensus on the siting of the secretariat. As I understand it, the consensus is everybody except Britain. We need a straighter answer from the Government. Are they trying to veto the siting of the secretariat in Argentina and if so why? What are their proposals? The longer the debate goes on, the slower the setting up of a secretariat.
While one welcomes the development of regulations associated with the passage of the Act, surely the operation of the treaty, the protocol and the Act is the important thing —on the ground and in the air. While the British Antarctic Survey is carrying out the provisions of the Act, as passed in this Parliament, other countries are not doing the same. Tour operators are not getting the information and advice that they should be getting and the damage caused to the Antarctic environment by illegal or unqualified tour operators is, in some cases, considerable. Those issues must be resolved—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention and the House knows my views on interventions.

Mr. Davis: I had drawn my remarks to a close, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall reply. As I said, I will write to the hon. Gentleman in detail.
Locating the secretariat in Buenos Aires would unbalance the political relationship between the three counter-claimant states. For that reason, we did not suggest that the institution should be housed in the United Kingdom. We would prefer a site in a more neutral state. Within that context, we are making as much effort as possible to resolve the issue as quickly as we can. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with any more details, if he wishes to press the matter further.

European Union

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful for this opportunity to have a final discussion on this most important topic. It is a great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the Front Bench. He has been translated to the Foreign Office in the recent shuffle. He has had dealings with European matters before, but without saying anything in public, and it is great to see him back.
I noticed during the previous debate that he had already perfected the form of delivery expected from the Foreign Office, and we look forward to hearing more of it. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend's predecessor, who did much in his short tenure of that office to improve the atmosphere in which European issues are discussed in the House. He did much to develop policy towards the next major intergovernmental conference in 1996.
It is most important to recognise the nature of this debate. We are no longer two sides at loggerheads, pro and anti—indeed, we never were. The Maastricht phase of adversarial discussion of European issues is behind us. We are now in a phase of dynamic and positive argument. Rather as in a Greek drama, we play different roles. My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in Government are heroes, to our role as chorus. We do our best to explain to the audience what is going on as the drama unfolds.
To that end, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) to take part in this debate. They will discuss, respectively, aspects of the Commission and the European Court, and I shall devote my comments to the European Parliament. We hope to give my hon. Friend the Minister plenty of time to catch up on his briefs, as he has been in the job for only 12 hours or thereabouts.
Much of our thinking on the future of those institutions has been set out in our pamphlet, "A Conservative Europe: 1994 and beyond", which was published earlier this year. It was based on the principle of support for the Prime Minister's stated position. He wants a
Europe of sovereign independent nation states".
In his article in The Economist in September last year, he said:
It is for nations to build Europe, not for Europe to attempt to supersede nations.
That is the basis of the broad consensus that is emerging in the United Kingdom. I notice that even the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on the Opposition Front Bench, which is empty at present, stated his opposition to a federal Europe and advocated a Europe of nation states.
We need to put flesh on those bones and to confront that position with the reality of the European Community today, which is that no other Governments have a concrete policy towards, or are acting towards, our vision of a Europe of nation states. The Community advocates and upholds an inviolate and ever-widening acquis communau- taire, and institutions that are devoted to promoting their European vision.
The central institutions of the European Community seem remote to most people. It is not simply a matter of attitude, which can be overcome by generating a sense of European esprit. The institutions' multinational nature will

always stand in the way of improving the Community's democratic legitimacy. A multilingual assembly will always look more like an international conference than a functioning Parliament, and a multilingual and multinational debate will never be seen to have the same relevance as national debates, regardless of the availability of translation services.
As the French, "No" campaigner Mr. Philippe Seguin said before the French referendum:
Democracy is synonymous with the nation state.
Many people have ambitions for the European Parliament to become supreme in the constitutional and legislative role in a European super-state. It will become the heart of a European super-state, and that is the most dangerous and preposterous of all of the federalist ambitions.
There is no example anywhere in the world of a true Parliament that spans nations, cultures and different languages, that does not also have a tendency towards disintegration, misunderstanding, antagonism and even bloodshed. That is not a vision that I share of the future of Europe.
The European Parliament already demonstrates how out of touch it is. Members of the European Parliament are notorious for their lofty detachment from the everyday lives of the citizens of this country. In the recent elections, the people demonstrated their contempt for the European Parliament and its processes. The turnout was the lowest ever in a European election. It was lower than in 1989, when the turnout was lower than in 1983, and that turnout was lower than in 1979. The election was characterised by reactive voting—voters reacted to national issues. People were not voting consciously for a particular type of Europe, or for certain policies in Europe, but reacting to national concerns.
The only constant theme throughout the European Community was a marked sceptical showing in all member states except Germany, which is always able more overtly to present the European project as a German project to its people.
The European Parliament has no more democratic legitimacy than a district council. Naturally, its credibility thus enhanced, it is entirely predictable that it should choose this moment to assert its authority by vetoing Mr. Jacques Santer—the consensus candidate for the presidency of the Commission.
European parliamentarians want to be treated as a 13th state—the European state—or perhaps not, for as we speak we do not yet have the result of the vote. Perhaps they will realise that their real authority is as thin as the paper on which the treaties are printed.
Earlier this week, however, the European Parliament obstructed the liberalisation of telecommunications in Europe. It is absurd that the principal institution devoted to the integration of Europe should want to stop us talking more freely and cheaply to each other. In truth, the Parliament has become an expensive, ridiculous, undemocratic, power hungry, unaccountable, obstructive encumbrance on the efficient working of the Union. It is a Parliament without a state, and unless Europe becomes a state it must remain so—

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: A Parliament in a state.

Mr. Jenkin: True enough.
In 1996, we shall need practical proposals on how to reform the working of the Parliament. The role of national


Parliaments needs to be enhanced, and the European Parliament needs to be smaller, more efficient and primarily devoted to auditing, accounting and reporting. Its potentially obstructive legislative role should be curbed. It should become more accountable to national Parliaments: a counterbalance to the Council of Ministers, which is accountable to national Governments.
I ask my hon. Friend for only one assurance on a subject likely to be on the agenda before 1996. It concerns the method of electing European parliamentarians. In the spirit of subsidiarity I would urge my hon. Friend to give us an assurance that the United Kingdom Parliament will continue to decide how our representatives to the European Parliament are elected. Will he undertake to continue to use the veto against a uniform system of elections?

Mr. William Cash: This is a much more important debate than the half hour or so allocated to it suggests. At this very moment—as the clock strikes 12.30 pm—the European Parliament is exercising a power conferred on it to decide whether it wishes to veto the appointment of the president of the Commission. We do not yet know the result, but I hope that it will be known in the course of these proceedings.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the course of yesterday's rather fraught proceedings in the European Parliament, the British Labour group decided —typically, the meeting was attended by only 16 people —to veto this particular gentleman? The Parliament has now called for a permanent place for a representative of the European Parliament alongside the Heads of Government. There is thus more to the matter than just vetoing an individual; these people are calling for a complete change in the structure of what my hon. Friend is about to discuss.

Mr. Cash: Yes, indeed. It is precisely this usurpation of power, accompanied by an abuse of power, that has characterised what has been done under articles 100A and 180A. These are the powers conferred by Governments on the European Parliament and the Commission—yet the latter always deny it. The Commission claims that a decentralising process is under way, yet anyone with any competence knows that the reverse is true. Certainly no one in Europe believes it. The Commission continually refers to an increase in the powers that are needed. The word "integration" by definition means more centralisation. Those are exactly the views of Mr. Santer, who apparently agrees with Mr. Dehaene. Europe will continue along these lines until we say no to the increases in the powers being demanded by Europe.
The intergovernmental conference is to be preceded by the so-called reflection group, set up at the Corfu summit. According to the Minister's predecessor at the Foreign Office, informal papers are already being put about to deal with the issue. The fact is that the IGC offers the Government a golden opportunity to put into effect what they say they want from time to time but never seem to implement—decreasing the powers of the European Commission.
In April 1990 I published a Bow Group pamphlet which I circulated to the House of Commons and in which I argued that we should reduce the powers of the Commission to those of the secretariat, at the same time increasing the scrutiny process both in our national

Parliament and in the Parliaments of the rest of Europe. The pamphlet was written when we had a different Prime Minister. Four years later, we are no further forward with these ideas—although only yesterday I heard another former Foreign Office Minister of State propounding my idea as if it were one of his own.
The necessity to do so is increased because of the amount of power that is being arrogated by the European Commission. The power to initiate legislation can be reduced only by taking the measures that I have described and by allowing the Council of Ministers the power to initiate legislation and to bring the veto back into play, not in the intermediate stages, when one is trying to arrive at an agreement, but when a national Parliament says, "Up with this we will not put." One could then secure the necessary consent.
The key point that completely escapes the Euro establishment, the Foreign Office, other Departments of State and the highest levels of Government, is that one cannot make the changes that are proposed unless one secures the people's consent. People are being taken down a route that, in their view, does not make any sense. That is why they reacted as they did in the European elections recently. They knew that they were being taken for a ride and they did not like it.
Germany was the only country that saw an increase in support for the pursuit of the European policy. That was because Mr. Kohl played the German national card. Elsewhere, results were different. In the United Kingdom, only 36 per cent. of the electorate turned out. Even in Holland, a mere 36 per cent. turned out. In his excellent remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said that we should reduce the European Parliament's powers so that it is more accountable to the people who are supposed to elect it, few as they are. The other key point is that, at the same time, we should ensure that such bureaucracy without responsibility and without accountability is brought to heel.

Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The way in which European Standing Committees work is good in part, but we have only one shot at lengthy European proposals. The Government are then allowed to go off, negotiate, decide and conclude matters. We never get a Third Reading or a final look at the final document, and we are never able to express a final opinion on what the Government decide to accept in Brussels. Such accountability is not nearly strong enough, particularly if one considers the huge volume of European legislation with which we are likely to deal once the new Commission is established and starts to implement the Maastricht treaty in full.

Mr. Cash: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. I issue a word of friendly advice to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has just taken up his new job. His predecessors have moved in an extremely dangerous zone in relation to the Select Committee on European Legislation. Such a Committee should be replicated throughout the European Community. France and many other member states operate by decree. We have a scrutiny process, but it does no good if Ministers in the Foreign Office or other Departments seek to bypass, in a most outrageous manner, proposals from the European


Commission. Proposals need to be scrutinised by us, because they will not be properly scrutinised by the European Parliament.
I should like to refer to the matter that is before the European Parliament: the allegedly proposed veto of Mr. Santer by the socialists in the European Parliament. In the past few weeks, we have witnessed an example of comedy —Greek or otherwise—turning into burlesque followed by farce. The way in which the matter has been handled is reprehensible to all hon. Members, as elected representatives of our constituents.
As I said in my comments on the Prime Minister's statement, we were told that we vetoed Mr. Dehaene as the unelected president of the Commission because it appeared that Germany and France were running the European Community, but Mr. Santer is fundamentally no different from Mr. Dehaene, and it was with some wry amusement that I heard him say that he is indistinguishable from Mr. Dehaene.

Mr. Duncan Smith: He is taller.

Mr. Cash: Perhaps he is, but I wonder whether he is fatter.
Mr. Santer may now be vetoed by the European Parliament, which shows that we, through our Government, have given more power to the European institutions than has been warranted. That will be remedied only by taking the steps that I have suggested.
The Minister of State is seeking advice. I hope that his search will be fruitful and that he will give a responsible reply to our points. I strongly urge him to answer a question that I put at the end of my most recent book on the subject, "Europe: The Crunch"—is anyone listening?
It may interest those who read our proceedings in Hansard to know that, despite the timing of the debate, a significant number of my hon. Friends are present to register their interest in the subject. If the Government are prepared to listen, changes will be made with some enthusiasm and co-operation, reflecting the fact that those who last year were regarded as heretics are now, according to general consent, backed forcefully by 70 per cent. of public opinion not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in Europe.
If we are to secure the necessary consent, it is equally important for the Euro-elites—the Governments of the European Community—to respond to the views of the Euro-realists and to bear in mind that we carry a potent message: that if they do not listen to us, and I sincerely hope that I can convey this as advice rather than a threat, things will get worse. The powers of the European Commission must be considered with the powers of the other institutions.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend said about the need to achieve consent for the European process, does he think that the Euro-sceptics are misnamed, and that they should be called Euro-democrats?

Mr. Cash: That is a superb suggestion. I like to refer to us as Euro-realists, but Euro-democrats is even better.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend read any significance into the fact that not one

of the Euro-realists, who, based on their voting records last year, might be characterised as Euro-sceptics, was included in the reshuffle yesterday?

Mr. Cash: That has certainly proved that being right does not necessarily lead to one's views being accepted. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Far too much is at stake. We are living in historic times. President Clinton has said that he thinks that Germany should lead Europe and he and his colleagues have said that we should have a single currency. I heard expressed at the very highest level of American diplomatic circles only two days ago the view that we are bound to accept the concept of a single currency, a concept that this Parliament will reject, or should reject.
The matters with which we are dealing extend into the realms of foreign policy, defence and the whole of our Westminster democracy. Some time ago a motion before the House dealt with the power of the Crown. The power of the European Commission has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has taken a dramatic initiative in giving us the opportunity for this debate. We await the result of a vote in another place that is a little further away than the other place to which we usually refer. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the alleged veto. Article 158 of the European Union treaty as amended states:
The President and the other members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.
As the other members of the body of the Commission have not, as far as I know, been appointed, any vote in the European Parliament today—which may have already taken place although we do not know the result—would be an opinion. It is within the rights of that Parliament to express an opinion; but, as I understand it, it is not a substantive vote for which article 158 allows.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Colchester, North and to the Minister, who may not wish to comment, because this is all at very short notice, that the fundamental constitution of the European Union/Community will get into a bit of a tangle. While it may be true that any vote being taken at this moment or already taken, whatever the result, is not substantive, it will certainly have influence and people will talk about it.
Any young Parliament that wishes to flex its muscles will use opportunities to show that it has political relevance, although as I say, technically, the vote may just be a reflection of opinion. We have not sufficiently appreciated that the European Parliament, like this Parliament, gained power by increasing its power over legislation, expenditure and administration.
Although I am in favour of European co-operation in an international sense, from the year dot I have regarded the constitution of the European Community as incorporating three institutions of government—the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. They are engaged in what might be called a triangular tug of war and the vote today, whatever its outcome, is part of that contest, which is a political as much as a constitutional contest. If there is to


be a referee in that triangular tug of war, which might be a new sport, then of course it is the European Commission Court of Justice.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister and I know that he would shortly like to reply to the debate. At last we can listen to him rather than just watch him in his place, as we did throughout the Maastricht process. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that it is sad that the Minister's predecessor has moved on, because he did much to articulate many of our concerns.
Today, in line with my other hon. Friends, I want briefly to raise the issue of the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that Mr. Santer has been accepted by the European Parliament by a vote of—apparently—260 in favour and 230 against, with a number of abstentions.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must admit that it seems rather strange for us to be taken to the brink by a Parliament which is distant and not altogether welcomed, necessarily, by the people in this country, judging by their voting record.
However, I shall continue on the issue of the European Court of Justice. Before Maastricht, that court, which was so critical to the formation and function of the Community, was completely unknown. If we have done one thing, it is to raise its profile. It is my belief and that of many others that that court is at the crux of many of the problems in the European Community. It is an innovative and interpretative court, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) said on a recent ten-minute Bill.
As I have said before, as has been published in an excellent pamphlet, "Game, Set and Match?", which contains selected speeches from the Maastricht process, which I recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister, and as others have said since, the court was based on the Conseil d'Etat. It is worth looking at the structure of the Conseil d'Etat in France, because one then fully understands how close it is to the European Court of Justice in seeing its role in an almost executive style of Government. For example, in its annual report, the Conseil d'Etat in France publishes all the legislative reforms which it deems necessary and acts, at the same time, as the legal adviser and supreme administrative court to the French Government.
If we are in any doubt about the ethos of the European Court of Justice, I shall cite two quotations from the pamphlet to which I referred. Some time ago, Advocate-General Lagrange said:
the Court must not be defeated by obscurities or contradictions in the wording of the text for the real meaning can be deduced from the context or the spirit of the text.
At a later stage, Advocate-General Roemer said:
the European treaties are nothing but a partial implementation of a grand general programme, dominated by the idea of a complete integration of the European States.
That, of course, sets the whole scene for the European Court of Justice and the way in which it has proceeded and been made competent by constant reference to the spirit of the treaty and has filled gaps with teleological interpretation.
I raise that point with my hon. Friend as he starts his new duties as Minister today, so that he may take a long look at the European Court of Justice. The Minister's

predecessor but one, our right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), tried to reassure us during the debates on Maastricht that the court was no longer centralising, but decentralising, even though I had put forward a number of cases to demonstrate that it had been centralising over a very long period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North, in his ten-minute Bill the other day, demonstrated that the then Minister's view was hope over experience because my hon. Friend quoted a number of cases since the Maastricht debates that have demonstrated quite the opposite and which are infecting our own court process. The European Court of Justice is critical, as it demonstrates the ratchet effect which has been talked of so often.
To end my speech, I should like to make some simple recommendations, which my hon. Friend may think about, and not necessarily answer today, but put in the round for 1996. First, we should recommend that new rules for the European Court of Justice's mandating of all deliberations be held in public and, rather than the unitary judgments now given, dissenting opinion should be expressed simultaneously with the majority position and the opinions of the advocates-general. Secondly, we should bring forward legislation that specifies that new justices and advocates-general have at least three years' direct judicial experience on the bench in national courts, thus barring political appointees and legal professionals without judicial experience from appointment.
Thirdly, we should establish the practice of seconding European Community judges from national legal systems and, fourthly, we should require a new procedure in the ECJ to allow the misuse of treaty powers to be rectified immediately, similar to an action for a declaration in the British courts.
I urge my hon. Friend to please take note that the ECJ is the most dangerous and the most centralising institution in the Community. I hope that we look to do something in 1996 to repair that damage.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
It is with some sense of deja vu that I stand at the Dispatch Box. I think that I have been free and easy in accepting oral interventions and speeches. That is partly because this might be a sort of celebration of our reunion on these matters.
We have had many robust discussions in the past, although not publicly, on issues relating to the institutional structures to which we are directing our attention this afternoon. I hope and trust that we shall continue to have robust discussions while adopting a constructive and creative attitude to the development of our ideas as we run into 1996.
With that theme, I thank hon. Members who have paid proper credit to my predecessor for the excellent job that he did over the past year in developing our policy and presenting it with his ministerial colleagues. I refer, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). Perhaps the best thing that I could hope for would be successfully to continue with my hon. Friend's successful work.
I note, too, that the Opposition Front Bench is completely empty. It strikes me that its emptiness is a


suitable comment on their policies on these matters. I do not expect that that policy will change as a result of the other election that took place in an interesting representative institution elsewhere at the same time today as the election of the new leader of the Labour party.
The future institutional structure of the European Union is of fundamental importance to the United Kingdom. Our approach to institutional issues in Europe is guided by the same principles that determine our approach to all European Union matters. We believe that the Union must be competitive, not least so that it can cope with the huge challenge that is posed by unemployment throughout the 12 member states.
The European Union must be open. It must be open for trade and open to other European countries that can meet the criteria for joining it. It must be flexible and capable of adapting to the needs of member states while maintaining the core disciplines that are essential to the successful functioning of the Union as a whole.
Part of the flexibility is the operation of the so-called pillar structure. There are clear advantages in acting together, when possible, in foreign and security policy as well as in justice and home affairs matters. That can be done successfully only on an intergovernmental basis and under a different set of rules from those that apply to Community business.
Vigorous application of subsidiarity is vital. We must act at European Community level only when it is absolutely necessary to do so.
The institutions of the European Union must be able to cope with the requirements that are placed on them by the demanding agenda that is before us. At the centre of the institutional structure will remain the Council of Ministers, which is formed by the representatives of the elected Governments of the member states.
The Council will continue to work under the direction of the European Council of Heads of Government, which provides general political guidelines for the Union as a whole.
The Commission and the European Court of Justice have a crucial role in ensuring compliance with treaties and with Community legislation. The European Parliament has significant powers to hold the Commission to account, and we know that it has exercised them in one respect today. The Parliament has a growing role in shaping legislation. The Court of Auditors monitors and investigates all expenditure.
I have given the briefest of overviews of our general approach to the institutional structure of the Union. I shall now respond in a more detailed fashion to more specific issues.
The Commission has an important role to play as the Union's executive, as its referee—we have heard about the three-way tug of war—and as the initiator of legislation. We disagree from time to time with the Commission, but we must remember that it often acts in our interests by enforcing competition and single market rules.
The recent case of landing rights at Orly airport is a good example of that. Another good example is the BSE case. The Commission needs powers to police effectively. For our part, we need to ensure that the Commission is efficient, accountable and remains committed to the goals set by successive European Councils.
With regard to the European Court of Justice, a strong rule of law in the Community is essential to British interests. We abide by our Community obligations and we must be sure that other member states are equally scrupulous. We therefore fully support the ECJ in its judicial role.
However, I recognise concerns that have been expressed in the House about certain decisions taken by the ECJ and the way in which it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We now come to the debate on the route of the channel tunnel through Barking. I call the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge).

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Barking)

1 pm

Ms Margaret Hodge: As I have been a Member of the House for such a short time, it is a privilege to be given the opportunity to speak in one of the last Adjournment debates of this Session on a topic which is of such paramount importance to my constituents. The focus of politics today for all sides of the House may be concentrated elsewhere rather than here, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House issues which mean so much to the people of Barking.
We are about to rise for a long recess when some of the worries and stresses of our lives will temporarily be lifted from our shoulders. There is no such respite for the people of Barking. My constituents face a summer of anxiety, worry, uncertainty and anger with the threat of the channel tunnel rail link route coming through the heart of our town, destroying the homes and lives of hundreds of families in my constituency.
Let me start by making it clear that I and my constituents, including those who are most directly affected by the tunnel, support the plans to establish a high-speed rail link connecting the channel tunnel to all parts of Britain. We are not displaying selfish nimbyism. We are saying that another solution must, and can, be found for Barking which does not destroy the homes, the environment and the lives of so many of the people in my constituency.
Nowhere along the entire route of the channel tunnel rail link in Britain are so many people so adversely affected by the Government's plans. Frankly, I find the plans grotesque. I believe that they represent a betrayal of trust on the Government's part: trust which the ordinary people place in the Government, and trust built on the belief that the Government will act in the interests of all the people throughout the country.
If my constituency had been a Tory marginal, with the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not have seen the proposals even reach the light of day. However, the people of Barking do not vote Tory. One of the reasons I was returned with such an historic majority for Labour, and the reason why the Conservative vote collapsed in Barking, was that the people of Barking feel that they have been abandoned by the Government. They are very angry.
What is good enough for the people of Kent must be good enough for the people of Barking. My constituents are ordinary working people. They are not Tory voters and they do not live in a marginal Tory seat. Nor are they like the articulate media pack and legal brigade in Islington where I live which lobbied the Government. However, the people of Kent and the people of Islington wrought concessions to minimise the environmental impact of the channel tunnel rail link. All I am asking for is fair and equal treatment for the people of Barking.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Hodge: In a moment.
It is the Government's duty to govern in the interests of all our citizens and it is on that ground that I ask for a fair deal in respect of the proposals for my constituency.

Mr. Rowe: Will the hon. Lady give way now?

Ms Hodge: I am anxious to finish my speech in 15 minutes. This is my only opportunity to raise the matter on behalf of my constituents.
Let me deal with the impact of the proposal. The Minister for Transport in London has visited the area. He will know that more than 1,000 homes are directly or indirectly affected by the proposals. In answer to a recent parliamentary question, the Government admitted that the boundaries of as many as 321 homes in Barking. are directly adjacent to the rail track. That is more than anywhere in Kent or in Islington.
The proposal tears the heart out of Barking. It destroys the basis of the community in that part of London. It also destroys the Government's own stated objective of urban regeneration and renewal. Take the heart out of Barking and we will destroy the integrity of the community.
The homes in which those people live are not luxurious suburban residences, they are homes that were built for war heroes. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Government admitted that the distance from the back wall of the nearest house to the track is 2.5 m. I am not terribly good at estimating distances, but I guess that that is closer than the distance between the Minister and myself.
Trains currently pass the area at about 47 mph. Fast trains will go through at 185 mph. That will make an enormous difference. From calculations that I have had to make because the Government have been unable to provide me with proper estimates, at peak times there will be one train every three minutes going past the homes of people in Barking, at a distance of 2.5 m from their kitchens. We must add to that the problem of freight traffic. Again, the Government's estimates suggest that, instead of the 6.1 million tonnes of freight traffic in 1993, 16.4 million tonnes of freight will be carried on that track. In 2013, there will be a further adverse impact on the quality of the lives of people living close to the track.
We have had some noise measurements. I believe that they are inadequate. Even the measurements that have been published to date show—again I make a comparison with Islington, the borough of which I used to be the leader —in Islington 45 properties were affected by noise in excess of 85 DBA. In Barking, 325 properties will be so affected, yet the Government have no proposals on the table to ameliorate the quality of life. There are also vibration levels.
The only solution that has been suggested so far is that there should be 10 ft high walls between the rail track and peoples' homes. Again I stress the 2.5 m distance. A 10 ft high wall will do absolutely nothing for people if they have to look out at a mass of coircrete. It will be claustrophobic. That is not the environmental protection that we should enjoy today.
Who will be affected? Some are tenants, some are owner-occupiers. The tenants have no escape; they are locked into the homes in which they have lived happily for many years. Owner-occupiers are finding their properties blighted. At the peak of the market, their homes were worth £80,000 to £85,000. We all accept that, to some extent, the market has collapsed, but people cannot sell their homes in that area of Barking. One could probably sell for £20,000 to £25,000, but nobody would give a mortgage on such a home, so we are talking about cash purchasers, most of whom are private landlords who would turn the area into bedsit territory, which again would impact on the sense of community which is so important in that part of London.
I shall tell hon. Members about three people who have written to me; I have received hundreds of letters. One is a woman who moved into her house when she was just married. She now has three children and she is locked into a two-bedroom house which she cannot sell. The children are now reaching their teens. Another constituent is an old-age pensioner who has an asbestos-related disease and who wants to move, but he cannot sell to move somewhere which would give him the chance to live longer.
The third constituent is a woman whose mother lived down the road. When her mother died, she wanted to sell her mother's house so that she could afford to put her children through higher education. Nobody will buy the house and, as a result, her children are being prevented from achieving their aspiration of an opportunity in life.
I wish to deal with a couple of other issues which are of concern to me. We have found that Union Rail is not giving us the information that we require, and we are living in uncertainty and secrecy. My constituents have a right to know. On the issue of freight, there is no clear information.
In November 1993, a representative from Union Rail assured residents of Scruttons Farm that there were no plans for a railhead at Ripple lane. I now understand that Union Rail may have plans to build two railheads in Renwick road and Scruttons, and the Secretary of State has announced that there will be a freight link to Ripple lane.
There has been an intensification of use, and nobody knows why. Union Rail and British Rail have said that they are maintaining and upgrading the line, but I believe that they are preparing for the intensification of use by freight trains and avoiding paying compensation to residents in the area.
On compensation levels, there is no clear information for residents on the level of compensation, and it is unclear how many residents will get compensation. The levels of compensation have yet to be set, and they will be set by private sector companies which will have control of building the channel tunnel rail link. This is a matter of public policy, which ought to be determined by the Government. The veil of secrecy and uncertainty is unacceptable, and I ask Ministers to ensure that, in the interests of my constituents, we bring an end to it.
Is there an alternative? In Kent and Islington, work was done on other options, and in Kent, five options were worked out to see which was the most feasible. Why cannot we have some investigation of other options in Barking? There has been unanimous support within the community for the channel tunnel rail link to be tunnelled under Barking Reach. That is an empty piece of land, and the project would not impact on the future plans for the reach or on the current residents. Other options were also available for consideration.
Some £2.7 billion is being spent on the project, and all I am asking is that we should investigate. If it costs another £50 million or £60 million, it will be a worthwhile investment for the long-term benefit which it would bring to my community. I am concerned that there is has not been a proper estimate of costs and that other costs have not been taken into consideration.
For example, I do not know—perhaps the Minister might enlighten me—what the cost of the disruption to the current freight and passenger services will be during the construction of services on Tilbury dock.
I ask the Minister to assure me today on three matters. First, he will recognise that there is a case to answer to which he and the new Ministers should now give consideration. Secondly, he should cost all the other options so that at least we can be objective about providing the channel tunnel rail link which we all want. Thirdly, he should leave a mechanism in place in the Bill which gives us time for consultation and for consideration. That may mean widening the limits of deviation around the proposed route so that the alternative under Barking Reach can be considered.
If Jo Richardson had not been so ill during her latter years, I am sure that we would never have got to the position today where the interests of thousands of Barking residents are being ignored, while the interests of other people along the route from Islington down to Kent have been acknowledged. I am asking the Minister to pause for thought, and to give us one more opportunity to provide a sensible and lasting solution. We all want the rail link, but not at the price of destroying a community, destroying people's homes, destroying their environment and destroying their future.

Mr. Stephen Timms: In supporting the points made so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on behalf of her constituents, I draw attention to a further issue related to the link as it passes through Barking and the rest of east London. It is clear that significant environmental problems will be caused by the link, whatever the ultimate route. If, as I hope, my hon. Friend is successful in persuading the Government to choose an alternative route through Barking, problems will arise with tunnelling. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) recently convened a meeting with Union Rail to discuss those problems.
In 1991, the then Secretary of State, announcing the east London route for the link told the House of Commons:
the line will be built through east London, where the prospect is welcomed for the economic regeneration that it will bring."— [Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 26.]
Local authorities in east London in Barking, Dagenham, Newham to the west and Havering to the east are imaginative and enterprising. The Secretary of State was right: the authorities spotted from the outset the potential for the link to provide the stimulus for economic regeneration in the area that we so desperately need.
Yet it is plain as a pikestaff that there can be no regeneration in east London from the link if there is no international station in east London. Stratford now appears to be the only place where there is still a possibility of an international station in east London. It is now the only way to unlock the potential that the Government rightly identified for economic regeneration in Barking and the rest of east London.
I understand that an announcement is imminent on the matter and that the new ministerial team at the Department of Transport wants to consider the matter before making the announcement. That is entirely proper. I understand that. I urge the Minister to ensure that the announcement contains a commitment to the long box at Stratford so that the Stratford station remains a possibility. Beyond that, there should also be a commitment to the international


station as a integral part of the scheme so that the regeneration benefits that Barking and east London need, and that the Government have promised, will materialise.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): With the leave of the House, I congratulate the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on securing this debate. It is about what she and I know to be an extremely important issue, not least for those of her constituents whom she has properly represented today. As she knows, during the past few months and indeed, the past few years, Ministers in the Department of Transport have received a number of representations from local residents, the borough and members of the borough council. Councillor George Brooker has a been frequent and assiduous correspondent on the issue and has met Ministers on several occasions.
I shall merely leave on the record the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) about the choice of intermediate stations. My job is merely to confirm that the choice of stations will be made shortly and, more importantly, in time for inclusion in the Bill and to confirm, as he probably knows, that it is assumed that the Bill will be ready for November and, subject to the parliamentary timetable, will be brought before the House.
I shall savour and enjoy for some months to come the description by the hon. Member for Barking of her erstwhile constituents in Islington as the articulate media pack, the chattering classes' chattering class, as we always knew them to be in Islington. It would be churlish of me to suggest that the hon. Lady was to some degree the doyenne of such a pack, but none the less, whither Islington these days and welcome to Barking and a more realistic view of life than occasionally is held in the borough of Islington.
Without descending into political point scoring, as I do not see it as a Labour-Tory issue, it is clear to me, having looked at a great many major schemes over the years in the Department, that not the slightest influence is brought to bear by the excellent officials, whose job it is to do the basic work, on the voting preference of those who live adjacent to schemes, whether they are Tory grandees living alongside road schemes that happened to impinge on the fields at the bottom of their rolling acres or the residents of the hon. Lady's constituency; that simply is not a material consideration. On reflection, the hon. Lady might not want to pursue that point, as it would be a reflection on the integrity of officials, which, with her long experience of local government, she would not like to cast.
The hon. Lady was good at defining the problem. There was some excellent hyperbole and my emotions were drawn and strung but, sadly, she said very little about any proposed solution.
In the next few minutes I shall give a little of the background to where we are on the rail link and try to address in a practical way what the actual solutions are. The hon. Lady made it clear—I am grateful to her for doing so—that she is not opposed to the idea of a second rail link and neither are the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms). We are discussing the practical way of delivering that rail link in that part of London, and what the hon. Lady said about the impact of the link and the difficulty there will always be

—which no doubt she has faced in other fields because of her long career in local government—in trying to find the right way through.
As she will recall, the decision was taken in 1991 for the rail link to run from Kent to King's Cross St. Pancras via the so-called easterly approach and, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-east said, to assist in the regeneration and development of the east Thames corridor.
Since the announcement of the general easterly approach, we have done a great deal of work and I would like to express my appreciation of the work of Union Rail over the past few years. I can appreciate that, in the nature of things, there will inevitably be some conflict between those who represent affected residents and Union Rail as, in effect, the proposer of the scheme. My experience has been that Union Rail is an excellent and professional organisation. If the hon. Lady believes that information is being withheld and kept secret by Union Rail in a manner that she believes to be unreasonable, I shall certainly ask Union Rail at the highest level to consider carefully the specific points she raised and I shall endeavour to let her have the information.
Of course there are considerations of commercial confidentiality, but in general it is a matter for the whole community to resolve and issues of secrecy do not arise.
Union Rail submitted its report in March 1993 which proposed a route for consultation which ran through Barking largely on the surface. There was then a period of further work and consultation. The results of that work were reported in Union Rail's October 1993 report. The Government decisions on the route were announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State on 24 January this year.
Part of the conclusions reached then included the route of the rail link through Barking. The March 1993 route ran from the portal of the London tunnel to the south-east of the existing Barking station—the route that the rail link would run on the surface along the existing London-Tilbury and Southend railway corridor through Barking. As the hon. Lady says, I and other Ministers at the Department have visited that part of the route on a number of occasions.
The hon. Lady mentioned a tunnel option for Barking as one of the proposals, and then spoke about Barking region. I shall try to relate the two.
Following the announcement of the March 1993 route, and during the subsequent consultations, Union Rail worked up a tunnel option, which was included in the October 1993 report. The option would have extended the London tunnel by about 1.8 km, along a similar alignment to the surface route, thus moving the portal further east to the Ripple area. It was estimated that the tunnel would cost £40 million and the figure could be reduced to between £20 million and £25 million if only one tunnel boring machine were used. That would also introduce a six-month delay in the programme, however.
We were not convinced that the tunnel was the right answer, especially as the scope for further mitigation of the route remained. Yes, it would be in the shape of different types of noise barriers. Also, the modest extension to the property purchase and compensation policy announced at the same time, which would allow hardship terms to be offered for cases in which a home qualified for noise insulation under the draft noise insulation regulations, should help in some cases.
I am clear that the construction of the rail link through that area of Barking will need to be carried out in a sympathetic manner and in line with an agreed code of construction practice, to minimise the inconvenience to the local community.
Since then, my right hon. Friend, the former Minister for Public Transport, the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), has met Councillor Brooker, who further pressed for the Barking tunnel option, which was included in the October 1993 report. We made it clear to George Brooker that, after carefully considering the points made, the January 1994 decision stood.
Incidentally, on the hon. Lady's proposal, some of the residents of Essex road and other roads in the area said that they were rather worried about the tunnel option there because, in the short term, it would lead to the existing line carrying increased freight traffic, for which they would receive no compensation, and there would be a possibility of vibration from the tunnel underneath their homes.
I am afraid that at that stage there were already widely divergent views, not only on the benefits of the existing option, but on the merits of the 1993 proposal—the tunnel.
On the question of the tunnel under Barking Reach, which was more in line with the original Ove Arup route, as the hon. Lady was told in answer to a parliamentary question this week, we have not received detailed advice on the feasibility or the additional cost of routing the rail link under Barking Reach, and I shall give some of the reasons. That sort of tunnel would affect the flagship east Thames corridor development site there, which is very near to the council's heart.

Ms Hodge: indicated dissent.

Mr. Norris: If the hon. Lady disagrees with that proposition, in all seriousness, I invite her—together with the council, if necessary—to let me have at an early stage chapter and verse on precisely why she has come to that conclusion. The route would also pass very near Ford,

Barking power station, the A13 extension and so forth. The proposition might require a new route to be devised for the rail link all the way to Stratford, which is very important as it would affect many more properties than the present route, which closely follows the existing railway corridor.
I was looking at the route that that option would take and the hon. Lady is more than welcome to see me, or whichever one of my hon. or right hon. Friends is given direct responsibility for the project, to find out precisely what the impact would be. I have always found the hon. Lady to be a reasonable soul and I cannot believe that she would not care about the many additional properties that would be affected by the Barking Reach option. It is utterly symptomatic of her party's pathetic approach to public expenditure that she brushes the cost aside. She says, "Fifty to £80 million—well if it has to be, it has to be, after all, it is a jolly big sum of money, isn't it?"
I suppose that that is one basis on which to monitor public accounting, but it is not one that I commend to her. If she is late for the coronation that is taking place elsewhere in our great city, or if she has not been invited, I am sure that it will not be long before she manages to re-ingratiate herself with the chattering-class leadership of her party, when she might discuss with those who have some responsibility for finance in her party whether they are prepared to be quite so cavalier with public finances as she suggested.
We shall take forward this project sensibly and responsibly. As far as possible, and within the limits imposed by those who propose such major constructions, we shall consider any serious proposals that may achieve what the local community wants, with the least possible disruption.
Neither the hon. Lady nor I had the opportunity to touch on some of the subsidiary issues today, but I want to make it clear that this need not be the end of the discussion. I know that the new Secretary of State will be more than willing to listen to what she has to say, and so will I. As far as practicable, we shall reflect on whether any of her additional points can be accommodated.

National and Local Government

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): To have two Ministers on the Front Bench for a debate of this sort is a work of remarkable supererogation. It gives me the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on arriving in his new position.
This is an ambitious subject for a short debate, so it will inevitably be perfunctory. The House has become increasingly interested lately in its own proceedings. That is good, because Parliament is losing its power as the world becomes a global village. One result of that is the emergence of the European Union. Despite the Canutes who again this morning have been trying to brush sand in the direction of the incoming tide, it is clear that power will continue to move gradually away from this place and towards Europe.
So far, our reaction has been petulant and ineffective. Mostly, decisions in the European Union are made by the Executive, and are reported, sooner or later or not at all, to this House. The European Parliament has just been given new powers. I hope that it will use them particularly to call the European Executive to account. There is fraud, there is incompetence and there is the sheer difficulty of enforcing regulations; there is plenty for the European Parliament to do. Will it do it? What will our response be?
No serious attempt has yet been made to forge and maintain links between Members of Parliament here and Members of the European Parliament. We are now entitled to one free visit a year to the EU—an act of astonishing generosity. No attempt has been made to provide video conferencing facilities between ourselves and Members of the European Parliament. As far as I can ascertain, there are virtually no serious institutional joint committees—yet increasingly our fate and that of the European Pat-Lament are interwoven.
We are always told that there are problems of time; as a matter of fact, we could have much less to do here, and we could make much better use of Members' time. The worst feature of the British system of government is the Government's under-use of Back Benchers of all parties. Why cannot we work out a timetable to allow Back Benchers to play a serious role in Europe on the United Kingdom's behalf? It seems to me that the United Kingdom system demands more and more legislation about less and less.
The Chamber is a good forum for debating issues of public concern, but it does so far too rarely. We could debate issues such as euthanasia or genetic engineering, but we leave far too little time for that, even though these topics command considerable interest among the British public.
We also face a new menace: the media. There is a new threat of harassment—of scrutiny beyond the norm—if any Member of Parliament raises his head above the parapet in an attempt to check the media. Of course, it is all done in the name of accountability to the public, but it is actually counter-productive. What the public need are Members of Parliament who are increasingly willing to defend their constituents and institutions from the overmighty media. A new balance must be struck.
The word "privilege" has been misunderstood; it should enable Members of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said last night, to serve

the public free from restrictions. In a way, one of the most sinister developments has been the advance of Berlusconi. I have nothing against him—I do not know him at all—but for someone to make their way to Parliament basically on the back of owning a massive media empire and a couple of football teams is dangerous, and we need to consider it more closely.
The Government's reaction to the erosion of powers is to interfere ever more closely in the lower tiers of government. In principle, the Government claim that they have delegated powers to national health service trusts, schools, housing associations and other organisations. If they had the courage of their convictions, how good that would be. Their nerve, however, has failed. At every turn, they have imposed constraints on their creatures.
NHS trusts still operate in the shadow of Whitley. They cannot hire and fire consultants without incurring ludicrous costs. They are severely limited in making their own arrangements on contracts. Schools, having been set national curriculum targets, are still not free to choose how to reach them. Even hours of teaching are prescribed, despite recent research that shows there is no correlation between the hours spent teaching and the results achieved. The methods of teaching are frequently prescribed and one of the results is that professionals feel deskilled.
An enormous amount of power has been removed from local authorities. Planning appeals are so widespread that they emasculate planning committees. The capacity to raise income locally has been circumscribed. The right to be significantly different from neighbouring authorities has, effectively, been largely undermined. The public pressure for uniform standards has been allowed to triumph over the encouragement of local democracy.
That brings me to the local government review, a policy development that I deeply regret. If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the horse, this is it. Instead of asking what local government in the 21st century is for, we have leapt in to change the machinery of local government. No serious debate has been held on the balance of power between central and local government. No attempt has been made to link local government with the health service, despite the shift from institutions for care towards care in the community.
No serious attempt has been made to recognise one of the biggest changes in the United Kingdom: the growth in the sophistication and education of the public. The effect of that change is everywhere, yet instead of making coherent attempts to harness it for more responsible local government, we have let it be funnelled almost exclusively into pressure groups and single-issue lobbies which are increasingly distorting national policies.
Like everywhere else, Kent is faced with recommendations from the local government commission which resemble the mule of antiquity, which it was said had neither pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity. We must choose between structures that set citizen against citizen, councillor against councillor, and that split the county's Members of Parliament down the middle.
It was a great pity that we were excluded from even considering a county council with scaled-down powers. I have been proud of Kent's reputation for good policing, good fire services and innovative social services. I fervently hope that the changes that will be forced on us will improve them, but I wonder if they will.
Given the size and homogeneity of the Medway towns, it is difficult to argue that they should not become a unitary


authority, and people there are keen that that should be so, except the Gillingham Liberals, who apparently have infuriated the Rochester upon Medway Liberals by stuffing leaflets through their doors condemning them for supporting unitary status.
So vicious has the fraternal dispute become that I gather that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is to be asked to parachute in and to sort it out, if he can spare the time from sorting out Bosnia. We know that the Liberals say one thing in the south-west and another in the south-east, but to have two Liberal groups saying different things within a mile of each other adds a new piquancy to their inability to get their act together.
I should be glad if my hon. Friend the Minister could reassure us that, whatever the final outcome of the Local Government Commission deliberations, Kent will be able to continue to command European Union resources as part of a Euro-region and will not be jeopardised by a reduction of its present size. We have had a considerable inflow of valuable money from the European Union as we have developed as part of a Euro-region, and I would be deeply sorry if any change in the local government set-up put that very valuable development—a development that is indispensable as we are the home of the British end of the channel tunnel—at risk.
There is yet another dimension to this constitutional upheaval. The hon. Member who is just about to be proclaimed the leader of the Labour party has promised a Scottish Parliament within a year of any Labour election victory. That is a very interesting promise. How will that Parliament be formed? What will it do? What will be its impact on this Parliament? The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) suggested the other night that Stormont provided a precedent, whereby hon. Members from Northern Ireland were allowed to vote on English matters and in Northern Ireland took part in exclusively Northern Ireland debates. Northern Ireland constituencies were quite large, whereas Scottish ones are generally considerably smaller than those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I would find any such arrangement for Scotland wholly unacceptable and I do not believe that I would be the only English Member of Parliament to hold that view. If Scottish Members of Parliament were to sit in a Scottish Parliament to debate Scotland's health, education, social services, roads or any other subject and I could have no vote, I certainly would not accept their voting on England's health, education, roads or similar subjects.
If Scottish Members of Parliament are not to take part in a Scottish Parliament, what will it do and who will sit in it? It does not sound like a particularly useful undertaking and I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) explain to the House exactly what this promise, on which so many Scottish hopes have been built, will mean in practice.
I believe that the time has come for Madam Speaker to set up a commission to examine the future of this ancient Parliament and to equip it for the 21st century. We are muddling along in this place. It seems that there is some value in having a change in sitting hours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member thinks that the Minister who will reply is responsible for all the subjects that he is covering.

Mr. Rowe: I tabled the subject of my debate; I did not choose the Minister to reply to it. I have enormous confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister, whose knowledge of the constitution is extraordinary. I certainly imagine that he will share some of my anxieties about the future of this ancient Parliament, which, unless we address the matter in a coherent, sensible and radical way, will simply become a talking shop with little effect on the Executive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that this is an Adjournment debate, but the hon. Gentleman is not being fair to the Minister. I hope that he will bear that in mind.

Mr. Rowe: Of course I accept the rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I am entitled to say that part of my unease about this country's constitutional arrangements, whether national or local, stems from the aggrandisement of the Executive at the expense of Parliament or local authorities. We cannot expect the Government themselves to address that. It is up to the House to pay considerable attention to these matters because we were sent here to represent constituents to whom the shape and form of local government is of little concern. Every person who comes to my surgery with a grievance is mistaken about which layer of government is responsible for it.
The Government hope that, as a result of the deliberations of the Local Government Commission, the number of tiers will be reduced and people will get it right. If the Government believe that they are fooling themselves, because people who come to my surgery do not know whether Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security or housing or roads departments belong to a particular tier of local government.
Instead of looking all the time to the machinery of local or central government, we should increasingly address the definition of the role of government in a world in which money, information, armaments and everything else can move across frontiers at the drop of a hat.
The telegram totally changed the nature of diplomacy. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was the last British ambassador to declare war on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty. After that, information was sent home by telegram for discussion by the Foreign Secretary. The communications revolution, the increase in education and sophistication among the population and the way in which decisions are taken around the world have completely altered the nature of the role and authority of government. The relationships between local and central government or between this Parliament and the European Parliament should be urgently addressed.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your attempts to make sure that I answered only to my brief, but perhaps I will take the liberty of being slightly discursive. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) spoke about the European Union and the European Parliament. I spent 10 years in that institution so I can reflect to some degree on its competencies in relation to the House.
It is a mistake to believe that power and responsibility exist in defined chunks, and that an absence of power and responsibility here necessarily adds to them somewhere else. I have never believed in the thesis that giving more power to the European Parliament necessarily means that an equivalent amount of responsibility is removed from this or another national Parliament.
There is a real problem in the European Union over accountability for decisions. It depends on the Council and the areas of competence. I have always believed that the way to address that may lie much more in trying to elaborate some of the party links between Members at Westminster and Members of the European Parliament and to appeal via the party network rather than the parliamentary network. But with the best will in the world, the different working methods of the two establishments make that difficult.
For example, some continental Parliaments do not meet on Mondays. There are group meetings at which members of Government, Members of Parliament and Members of the country's European Parliament and perhaps senior party members discuss policy. That forms the network, the link. It is not a parliamentary link, it is a political link, which appears to be effective. One never knows, there may be things that we can learn from continental practice, in the same way as certain activities in the European Parliament, such as Question Time, have been adopted from the traditional practices effective in the House.
So, if I do not believe that there is a fixed body of competence, which must be divided like a cake between our Parliament and the European Union or its institutions, for the same reason I do not believe that that concept is true in our relationship with local government. I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent in pursuit of the health service or other such areas—I sure that he understands why—but I shall look at the areas for which my Department is competent. The urban development corporations, for example, were established to deliver a particular result: to try to assemble land in areas where there was a tradition of decay and dereliction, to try to do that efficiently and to accelerate some of the set planning procedures. Of course, local representatives sit on those bodies.
In my hon. Friend's county of Kent, on the border with the east Thames corridor, we are not adopting that technique, but we are deliberately working through the local authorities. We have brought them together in those terms, for we are shortly hoping to launch our planning strategy for the east Thames corridor, and we have deliberately sought to use the expertise and the competence of traditional, existing institutions. Up to now, touch wood, it is working very efficiently. I hope that we will manage, despite the particularity of the various councils and their obvious competing interests in attracting investment, to succeed in achieving a strategic concept in that whole area.
My hon. Friend mentioned planning and the appeals. It is important to acknowledge the role of the planning function and especially the local plan. We have a regional planning strategy, which is one of the unsung success stories of planning. People find that strategy very helpful. Again, local authorities play the central role in the conferences which bring that decision-making together and that has laid down the broad strategic thrust for developments. Indeed, the south-east regional guide was published relatively recently. We shall boil it down to a local plan.
If the local authorities settle down and produce their local plan, it enables them to give a clear idea of what sort of development they find acceptable. That gives us runway lights. We never say exactly what will happen, but the plan's purpose is to set a framework—the runway lights —within which decisions can be made so that there is a great certainty among everybody concerned about the development which may or may not take place. The elaboration of the plan gives local government—if it uses it sensibly in the manner intended—significant competence in that area.
I shall turn to the role of local government. If we had been holding this debate 120 or 130 years ago, we would have been talking about the creation of modern local government as a task of getting to grips with the unbridled and uncontrolled urbanisation which was the hallmark of the industrial revolution. We would have been talking about providing basic services such as sewerage, water, lights and effective sanitation. Those tasks brought into being Chamberlain's Birmingham and the municipal authorities in Leeds and Manchester; the great urban areas. The task of the Victorian era was the provision of basic amenities to cope with the vast industrial urban society.
If we then look at the immediate post second world period, we saw the creation of a welfare state in Britain and a significant number of competences, which had been the responsibility of local government, were brought into the national domain, especially the health service. It was a transfer of power, if one wants to put it in those terms, but it was a move to serve a different set of circumstances and conditions. Today, especially in the urban areas, we must tackle the reverse side of the coin to the challenges of the mid-Victorian era. We must deal with the debris of the industrial society. Regeneration tasks have been left in our inner cities, and for those we need a different sort of new local authority.
Therefore, I see a change in definition, but the powers must be relevant to the particular tasks that we wish local authorities to carry out at any time.
I believe that local authorities now have three essential roles. The first role is that of regulator, and there is no point in ignoring it. Local government acts under a statutory responsibility as a regulator in many different areas. Trading standards officers are a county responsibility while environmental health officers are a district responsibility. I have never been clear why those two distinct corps should have a separate constitutional arrangement. However, that is an example of regulatory functions that are carried out by local government. It is clear that that role will remain.
The second role is that of a service commissioner—I use the term deliberately—because local government organises the delivery of a range of services, whether the individual services are delivered directly or through the competitive process. The way in which they are delivered is a matter of detail. The fact is that local government has a statutory responsibility for the delivery of a certain number of services.
Local government's third role is that of a regenerator. I realise that that term is not appropriate to all authorities. It is one that will be more relevant in urban areas than in some rural areas. Local government has a role to work more and more with other agencies, with the private sector, with organisations such as training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce and educational establishments, so as to bring together the resources of the community to tackle specific problems. It is close on the back of the city


challenge programme, the single regeneration budget and the inter-regional offices, which are all designed to try to harness local resources and bring them to bear on a particular task. I think that the three functions that I have outlined will be at the heart of local government as it is now developing.
In many respects there has been a significant culture change in local government. We must be careful to ensure that where changes have taken place they can be said to be permanent, but where there has been a sea change, it must be recognised. We look to establishing the role of local government in the light of the changes that may have taken place.
Programmes such as city challenge and working in partnership are established gospels throughout large areas of local government. That may not have been the position five or 10 years ago. Some of the policies that we have pursued, such as competitive tendering and the city challenge process, were introduced during a period of budgetary constraints. However, they have contributed to the change in attitude within local government.
My hon. Friend asked specifically whether any local government reorganisation in Kent would affect its eligibility for European funds. The answer is no. I can give him that assurance without equivocation.
My hon. Friend talked about changes being forced. I wish to make it clear that the changes will not be forced. The Government do not have a secret agenda. We believe that it is legitimate to test the structures of local government against the functions that I have been describing to ascertain which is the most effective

mechanism for the delivery of services. If the answer is that unitary councils—one-stop shops—deliver services most effectively and are effective in service delivery, financial terms and identity terms, they will constitute the route that recommends itself. If such councils do not appear to be the obvious formula, if the benefits are not clear, or if the arguments point the other way, there is nothing that states that some preordained plan will determine a particular outcome in any particular area.
I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that when the debate takes place in Kent it is focused on the heart and nature of local government. Let it be a sensible and mature debate on how services are best delivered. Perhaps we can have rather less of the propaganda battle, which in some areas has disfigured debate in the heart of local government.
When the report comes to my Department, we shall examine it in the circumstances that I have outlined. As my hon. Friend knows, the procedure has been set up, but at present the recommendations are with the commission. It will have to test them against opinion in Kent and then make a final recommendation. That may not be the same as the original recommendation. The recommendation will come to us and the Government have options. We can accept it, reject it or send it back for modification. We are not bound by a recommendation that the commission may put forward except in general terms. We must conduct our own investigations and consultations, which will include my hon. Friend and other Members representing Kent constituencies. I believe that they know best what Kent wants and needs. They will be at the heart of our consultation. I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I hope that he will find that I have made a useful contribution to the debate.

Drug Use (Royal Commission)

2 pm

Mr. Paul Flynn: It is an unexpected pleasure to see a bearded Minister on the Government Front Bench today. At last there is a breakthrough for the fraternity of bearded Members who, under a previous Government, were treated like untouchable parliamentary lepers who were doomed to stay on the Back Benches.
It is a genuine and unexpected pleasure to see the new Minister, the Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) in his place. I hope that he will inspire others. One Minister actually shaved his beard off under the reign of Madam Thatcher in order to achieve a place on the Front Bench. I hope that he will take courage and now regrow it in these new days of liberty and freedom.
I am less enthusiastic about the response that I will receive from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who has held that office for rather a long time. The new Minister may carry on his intelligent and searching character from his Select Committee work, but I fear that we may be due for a response from the Minister of State, who has been long in office, which is predictable, based on a history of what has happened in this field over several years and is then followed by a period of self-congratulation for the Government.
Drugs are a massive problem. They have damaged and destroyed the lives of millions of our people, but so many of our decisions in respect of drugs are framed on ignorance and prejudice. Perhaps the simplest way to measure the problem is to consider the number of deaths from drugs.
According to official Government figures, no one has died from an overdose of cannabis. In the past year, 94 people died from taking heroin. Two hundred people died as a result of taking paracetamol, which is probably in every home in the land. Two thousand people died from using other drugs. Twenty-five thousand people died from using alcohol and 110,000 from using tobacco. However, as a nation, we spend £100 million encouraging our children to use tobacco and we arrested 40,000 people last year for using cannabis.
When we consider the history of drugs, it is strange to contemplate how we have reached our present position. In the last century, our grandmothers and their grandmothers could buy any drugs, not just in chemists but in local shops. Queen Victoria was a regular cannabis user. She used it every month of her adult life. Cannabis was used by many of the famous names in poetry and literature. They could buy a range of drugs, including heroin, cocaine and cannabis from their corner shops.
In 1928, we decided to criminalise cannabis and certain other drugs. We did that for an entirely irrational reason. The man in charge of a lunatic asylum in Alexandria, Egypt, claimed that all the inmates took cannabis. He assumed from that that the use of cannabis led to insanity. However, he did not point out that almost the entire population of Alexandria—men, women and children—also used cannabis, but they were not insane.
One argument in favour of banning cannabis which was made in the House a short while ago, and about which I was curious, is that it destroys brain cells. I decided to discover upon what that claim was based. Only one

experiment has suggested that cannabis destroys brain cells. In that experiment, monkeys were forced to smoke 63 very intensely strong cannabis cigarettes under such conditions that they drew into their lungs only cannabis smoke and insufficient oxygen. They suffered from carbon monoxide poisoning and that destroyed their brain cells.
Cannabis has been used widely throughout the world. It is claimed that 60 million Americans have used it and that there are 1 million regular users in Britain. I hope that we can have some new thinking about our current laws. Our laws are not only not stopping the increase in the use of drugs, but are actually fuelling that increase. We are repeating the mistakes that have been made in every country in the world.
I challenge the Minister to tell me of any country that has followed our line—that is, cracking down on cannabis and hard drugs—and where that has not led to the certain result of increased use and increased crime. America is the prime example. It had a very strong case against alcohol —one can always make a case on alcohol abuse much more than one can in respect of other drugs. Alcohol is an extremely damaging drug. Understandably, in 1919, it was decided to prohibit it. The result was a doubling of the use of alcohol. Even worse than that, four times as many people died from alcohol abuse, possibly because they were taking too much of it in unhealthy circumstances or because bad alcohol was on the market. Thirteen years later, when the use of alcohol was decriminalised, the situation reverted.
America inherited an empire of criminals who had grown rich in well-organised crime. We are now doing exactly the same in this country with illegal drugs. We know of the increase in crime. At least 40 per cent. of homes in our constituencies are broken into, and people commit petty crime in pursuit of goods to sell for money to fuel their habits or drug addictions. If we carry on like that, we will end up as they have in America. In America in 1962, just 4 per cent. of people between 18 and 25 were cannabis users. After the United States Government spending $8 billion a year, using their army, navy, air force, coastguard and diplomacy in the war on drugs—they call it a war on drugs—more than 70 per cent. of young Americans in that age group regularly use soft drugs. It is counter-productive.
I do not want an increase in cannabis use. I want cannabis to be regarded as boring and uninteresting. At the moment, it is regarded by young people as a challenge —something with which they can kick against other generations. One argument is that decriminalising the use of cannabis will lead more people to use it and will encourage them to go on to hard drugs. I heard one cannabis user answer that argument by saying, "My father has drunk five pints of bitter every Saturday night for the past 40 years and he has never gone on to methylated spirits." We know that groups of people will go on to abuse any drug, but there is a great gulf between those with personality weaknesses who go on to total hard drug abuse.
The great danger now is that with our young people experimenting with drugs—a third of them do, whatever we say and whatever we urge—they enter the world of illegality and mix with the pushers and the people who make money out of drugs. The likelihood is that they will be tempted, either by subterfuge or because they are under the influence of another drug, to go on to hard drugs. If we


take them out of that market, there will be a chance that they carry out their experiments and then put the drug aside as something of no interest.
Let us consider countries that have adopted that course. I am sure that the Minister read two reports this year, one by a left-wing think tank and the other by a right-wing think tank. They came from very different perspectives, but they reached the same conclusion—that the only way to cut crime and drug use is by decriminalising soft drugs. The worst figure on drug abuse is from America. In America, 1.5 million children are on amphetamines because they suffer from attention deprivation. It is tragic that people abuse a drug in such a way for no purpose. All drugs are damaging. Some benefit us, but they are all damaging in the long run.
Germany recently decriminalised cannabis for personal use. Italy and Holland have already done so. The head of Interpol strongly urges it. There are many such voices in America. The Health Minister in Portugal is urging decriminalisation. Police, judges and magistrates are urging that course. I am not suggesting that we follow Holland, which has gone from a black market to a white market. I am not suggesting that we should have drugs of any sort freely on sale. Drugs should certainly still be controlled.
If we look at that course, I believe we will see that it is the only one which we can take to undercut the market. The main reason why there has been an increase in drug use is not because drugs are enjoyable or that people are inherently wicked. The engine driving the increase in drug use here and in every corner of the world is profit. One would expect the Government to understand market forces.
If someone has a drug habit, the best way to pay for it is to persuade his pals to take up that drug habit. If someone is an addict of a hard drug, it may cost £500 a week to fund his habit. The only ways in which that can be paid for is by going into crime, prostitution or drug trading. In Bristol, local police said that it required £500 to feed a habit, and a person may have to steal something like £2,000 to £3,000 worth of camcorders and videos. The crime rate goes on rising.
There are examples in places such as Widnes where courageous doctors have taken a different path. In Widnes, the black market in hard drugs was virtually wiped out by treating the addicts as patients, because that is what they are—they are sick. If a drug is prescribed in a clean and hygienic way, the addict can take it without the fear of arrest. The drug will not be taken in sordid surroundings, and the addict does not have to share needles, thus lessening the chance of getting AIDS.
If the drug is taken in reasonable surroundings, there is a better chance of the person's building up self-esteem and going on a course of rehabilitation that may get him off the habit. It is working in Widnes and in other parts of the world. One remarkable example of what happened in that town is that, with the market in hard and soft drugs having collapsed, one of the local chain stores was willing to part with £2,000 to fund a drug conference. The hard-headed reason why it did that was because shop-lifting in the shop served by the patients of a doctor involved in treating addicts dropped to one twelfth of what it had been before.
We are in a society that is riddled with drugs, and we are having terrible problems. I wish to say something in the

short period I have remaining about medicinal drugs, because that is another terrible story. One may imagine that there are a huge number of hard drug addicts, but there are 400,000 addicts of medicinal drugs. Those people have gone along in good faith to their doctors for treatment. I do not blame the doctors, but I very much blame the pushers in the drug companies who make money out of those drugs.
We had a terrible period in this country when benzodiazepines were prescribed like smarties to people who found that they developed a life-long addiction. We already prescribe such drugs on the national health service, and we should also look at a drug which causes twice as many deaths as heroin each year—paracetemol. The Minister should look the next time he goes to a chemist or in his medicine cupboard at the warning for that drug. One needs to take very few of them before it is a fatal dose, and that drug occurs in 50 different guises in some very popular drugs.
It is a killer on a massive scale. If 200 people died in an accident in this city, there would be a major inquiry and we would be very worried. But that is the number who die every year from paracetamol, and the total who die from either accidental or deliberate overdoses of prescribed drugs is 2,000 a year.
We must decide whether the drugs that we take are necessary, and that strikes at the core of our relationship with drugs and at the problems in our society. I believe that we must hit at the drug trade by hitting at the drug market. The last thing which is required is the line that the Government have taken. In order to get some spurious transitory popularity, they posture as hard men who will crack down on the drug trade. What they did was to produce a proposal—I believe it is now a law—to multiply the fine for possession of cannabis fivefold. That was denounced not merely by the people who take drugs or people involved in drugs but by the magistrates, the police and everyone. They all said that it was a daft idea.
If anyone were foolish enough to impose such a fine, it would simply mean that the user of the drug had to commit more crime to pay the fine. The police throughout the country virtually do not fine or arrest anyone for possession of cannabis for personal use. That is the line taken by my police authority and many others. The police are turning against the law and not enforcing it. Only in certain areas are people arrested for use of cannabis. The Government increased the fine to make a vacuous political point.
I wish that the Government would look anew at the whole range of this massive problem. I wish that they would look at our relationship with drugs. We are a society which has become deeply dependent on drugs. We expect that there should be an answer for every sorrow that we feel, every bereavement, every pain and every moment of boredom. We reach for the box of pills and expect an answer there. We have forgotten that it is inevitable in the human condition that we suffer pain, boredom and bereavement. All we do by taking drugs is postpone that pain, often at terrible cost.
I urge the Government to take action now to set up a royal commission that can consider drug use in the great detail that is necessary and, in the end, liberate millions of our people from drug dependency.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Let me first pay the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) the compliment of saying that I know that he takes considerable interest in drug issues. It is a pity that he has not got himself better briefed on the facts of the case. Although we may differ in our approach to tackling the drugs problem, he and the rest of the House will agree when I say that drug misuse is one of the most serious problems which face our society. However, I must say, in all honesty, that some of the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expressed were absolute tosh. I shall come to them in a moment.
The drugs problem has many different facets, each of which has to be tackled in its own way. First, drug misuse is a serious health problem. Addiction can have dangerous physical effects. Drug-taking can, and all too often does, lead to death. We have a responsibility to current and future generations of young people to try to change their attitude to behaviour which can have such devastating physical consequences.
Secondly, drugs are a serious social problem. Beyond the individual's physical pain and misery are the social costs, the destruction of an individual's ability to cope with ordinary life, the destruction of any relationships they might have, the destruction of families, who cannot understand it when one of their members becomes addicted, and the destruction of whole communities and neighbourhoods by drug dealers and their evil trade.
Thirdly, drugs are a crime problem. Any strategy to tackle drug misuse must give priority to reducing the misery that drug-related crime inflicts on us all. We know that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has estimated that drug addiction costs this country £2 billion a year in property crime. That is half the recorded value of all stolen property. Few, if any, experts are convinced by that extraordinary estimate and neither am I.
The calculation is based on premises that do not stand up to close examination. The potential cost of £87,600 per heroin addict per year was based on high black market costs of heroin and high daily doses. Not all heroin addicts consume heroin daily, for a variety of reasons including lack of availability, personal disinclination and being either in treatment or in custody. It was further assumed that the whole of their addiction was financed solely from committing crimes and acquiring goods that were then sold and that the stolen goods were sold at only a third of their value.
Funding for drug addiction comes from many other sources. That formula makes no provision for addicts' legitimate sources of income such as benefits and earnings, or from the proceeds of prostitution, begging or the sale of drugs. Such generalised calculations need to be approached with caution. Nor is there any point in wasting time speculating on the exact relationship of drug-related crime, when our policies are designed to bear down on all crime, including drug abuse, and to ensure that our strategies embrace prevention as well as enforcement activity.
I have said enough to underline the seriousness of the drug problem and the threat that it poses to our society. The very seriousness of the problem has tempted some, including the hon. Member for Newport, West, to suggest that the legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs may be the answer.
Some find the idea of legalisation more attractive when confined to removing the controls on cannabis and other so-called soft drugs. There is still scientific debate about the long-term effects of cannabis misuse. There is evidence that cannabis can give rise to acute and transient mental disturbance and drug-induced psychotic illness. Whatever the longer-term effects might be, in the short term cannabis makes users light-headed and unable to concentrate, and any measures that would increase the availability of cannabis would have serious consequences for the health and safety of the public, particularly if cannabis were used by those working in the transport industry or operating industrial machines.
There is also emerging evidence that a much stronger strain of cannabis known by the street term "skunk" is becoming increasingly available on the illicit market. Even less is known about the long-term effects of that drug, which some estimate is five times more potent.
It is also totally misleading to compare the incidence of cannabis-related health problems with those of alcohol and tobacco. The latter substances are not controlled by law and consequentially are used far more widely. To say that alcohol or tobacco kill many more people than drugs do, and therefore we should legalise drugs, is a cock-eyed way of looking at the problem.
If a scientist came along today and said that he had invented a new product called tobacco or alcohol, would it be legalised? It is impossible to look at the historical development of alcohol and tobacco and reach the conclusion that they should be banned today. That is not a possible or sensible route to take, but it is nonsense to say that, as we now have drugs such as cannabis, which are apparently less evil than the destructive effect of tobacco, we should legalise them to put them on the same statutory basis. Why should we risk adding to the nation's health problems by legalising cannabis?
Any relaxation in current laws could have much wider consequences than is often imagined. There is evidence that misusers of drugs such as heroin or cocaine also misuse a wide variety of drugs, including cannabis. Removing the controls on any drugs in Britain would therefore make it a prime attraction for a wide spectrum of drug takers, and traffickers would be quick to move in to meet the demands on other drugs. The most recent report of the International Narcotics Control Board suggested that international drug traffickers target countries with weak laws and controls.
I had a briefing from experienced officers in a police force who recently visited Jamaica to look at the controls on crack. They said that a reggae song on the local radio in downtown Kingston was urging dealers to go to Britain. The encouragement to come to London was the suggestion that
The police don't bang, the courts don't hang and the sentence ain't tang".
The police certainly do not "bang" and our courts do not hang, but we have some very long sentences for drug dealing, and London ought not to be an attractive place for international drug dealers.
International drug dealers will certainly move to the place where they think that they can get away with dealing. If this country signalled that it was going to drop controls on some drugs, for misguided reasons, we would be perceived as a soft touch. That would be disastrous for all drug use.

Mr. Flynn: The reason that we are a soft touch is that dealers can make more profit here because cannabis is illegal. The use of cannabis has dropped in countries where it is legal. For example, in Holland it has dropped from 6 to 2 per cent. When alcohol was decriminalised in America, its use dropped because criminals could not make a profit. Does not the Minister understand that simple point?

Mr. Maclean: I am glad that some members of the Labour party are trying to learn the economics of the market, but the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. If he thinks that simply legalising drugs would somehow lower the price, that we would then have a free market and that criminal activity would cease, that is pie in the sky.
Our drug barons and dealers want to be in control, as we have seen. There would be intense competition among the drug barons and dealers to control the supply and maximise their profits. If the price dropped and more kids were encouraged into drug taking and drug use, it would be an appalling price for society to pay, simply because of some cock-eyed theory that it might be economically interesting to legalise drugs as it might pull the rug out from under the international drug market. No country in the world has come to that conclusion.
When some economists get together at seminars, they find it interesting to speculate on what the effect would be if countries legalised drugs. That would be a terribly dangerous experiment to conduct because millions of our people would become hooked on drugs. Not only that; I am convinced that it would not work.
If we legalised drugs, the drugs dealers and barons would not go away, saying, "That's us out of business. We can get the drugs at any local chemist, so there's no more market." Of course not; they will want to control the market in legalised drugs, and will resort to their usual violence to do so.

Mr. Flynn: What about Holland?

Mr. Maclean: I shall come to Germany and Holland —that was the point at which I thought that the hon. Gentleman was talking tosh. He suggested that everyone in the world—all academics, Governments, scientists, police and magistrates—thought that legalisation was a good idea. That is absolute nonsense. One has, of course, heard of some scientists somewhere—no doubt practising for a PhD—who have produced such theories, but I challenge the hon. Gentleman to name any Government in the

western world, or any police force in this country, who believe that legalising drugs would help in the fight against drugs—either on the enforcement side or by persuading kids to come off drugs.
A recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs adopted a resolution that urged Governments not to derogate from full implementation of the international drug control treaties. As a party to the 1961 convention, the United Kingdom is required to adopt measures to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, controlled drugs. We would therefore be in breach of the convention if we took unilateral measures to legalise controlled drugs. Even delegates meeting at the United Nations—whom I suspect of having trendy opinions at times—concluded that it would be suicidal to drop controls against drugs and that, among other reasons, is good enough for me.
The hon. Gentleman pointed with approval to the approach that the Dutch and Germans have adopted towards the possession of cannabis. Everything is not always as it seems with his sweeping generalisations. The Dutch Minister of Justice announced at the United Nations in October that his country's so-called coffee-shop policy, whereby cannabis dealing and use are tolerated at certain outlets, is to be reviewed because of a sharp increase in the availability of the drug.
In Germany, the ruling by the constitutional court that possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use should not, in certain circumstances, be prosecuted attracted some notice. I fear, however, that the hon. Gentleman would be misleading himself and others if he suggested that that amounted to a significant move in the direction of legalisation. The Federal Government have made it clear that the ruling contains nothing new, while the Health Minister described it as "hopelessly wrongly interpreted". The Federal Government have also stressed that the existing law enables prosecuting authorities in the courts not to impose a sentence in minor cases of possession for occasional personal use when there is no danger to third parties, but possession of cannabis remains illegal.
The members of the European Community are united in the fight against drug misuse. At the Corfu European Council last month, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi

Mr. Jim Lester: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister who has to reply to this debate. I had no idea that he was in Hong Kong when I applied for it. I understand that he landed at 5 o'clock this morning, only to find that he had to answer this debate. Still, I know that he shares many of our concerns about Burma, and I am sure that he will rise to the occasion.
I thought it vital, before we finished for the summer, that the House paid its respects to the courage of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has now completed five years under house arrest in Rangoon and who, for many Burmese all over the world and in Burma, has kept alive the hope of a return to democratic government in Burma.
I also record the fact that 2,064 Members of Parliament from 32 countries, including 200 of our colleagues here, signed a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, pointing out to him that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi won a landslide victory in May 1990, winning 392 of 485 seats—despite the fact that she was by then under house arrest. Since then, about 1,550 opponents of the Government, many of them elected to Parliament in that election, have been arrested or put in prison. The human rights abuses by the Burmese regime have been well catalogued.
The fact that several colleagues are present in the Chamber for this Adjournment debate is a tribute to their concern. Our letter to Boutros Boutros-Ghali was designed to reiterate what we have always understood to be the position of the international community; it called for the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, with guarantees of their complete freedom and swift implementation of a transition to civilian rule, as mandated by the election of May 1990.
On 20 July five years ago, 11 lorries full of troops came to San Suu Kyi's house. The troops cut off the telephones and excluded her from all contact with any but her immediate family. Some comparison can be made with the suffering of Nelson Mandela and his immense contribution to change in South Africa while being imprisoned for so long. Mandela at least went through some form of legal process—however much we might disagree with it—before being sent to Robbin Island; whereas San Suu Kyi has never stood trial or been given any justification by the illegal regime for the fact that she has been detained.
We know from her conversation with Congressman Richardson—the only person from the western world who has had a chance to see her in the past five years—that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi remains in touch with events in Burma and the world, and that she is still ready, in the same spirit of peace and tranquillity as she has shown ever since becoming involved in Burmese politics, to discuss the way forward.
The regime has, step by step, extended its original powers and sought, with the passage of time, to claim legitimacy, despite the overwhelming rejection of the people of Burma. San Suu Kyi still reaches out towards it to find a way in which to allay its fears and to negotiate and discuss the way forward for the Burmese people, who fear, of all things, the abuse of all normal standards of human rights.
I received a letter from Mr. Sein Win, the Prime

Minister of the national coalition Government of the Union of Burma, who asked me to express to the House, on behalf of the Burmese people, their gratitude
to you and to other members of the House of Commons. Without such well-meaning concern about the human rights situation in Burma by United Kingdom and the others in the international community, the people of Burma would long have lost their hopes to be free and democratic and the brute force of the SLORC would have prevailed over justice.
Many people in all parts of the world feel concern about the lack of progress towards a solution.
I wanted to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether the Government remain resolute in their original policy. In some circles, there is concern that the promotion of British week for the second year in Rangoon could give the impression that the time that has elapsed since the election has dulled the edge of our concerns. We know how difficult it is to apply direct pressure on the regime. We know how it is cushioned within the Association of South-East Asian Nations community from the direct concerns that many of us feel.
Will my right hon. Friend give an impression of how we feel about dealing with our Asian and, in particular, our Commonwealth colleagues who are members of ASEAN in terms of constructive engagement with the regime? From the comments of previous Ministers who attended ASEAN meetings, I know how strongly they presented our views. We know that Mr. Baker, the previous US Secretary of State put forward the United States view in a forthright manner at the ASEAN meeting that he attended. This coming week, however, the ASEAN meeting has invited the illegal Burmese regime to attend its opening dinner and closing ceremony.
Constructive engagement can work, but many of us are concerned that it seeks to give authenticity to the illegal State Law and Order Restoration Council regime before the convention succeeds. We are concerned that we may give the impression that, by allowing time to elapse, the regime will accepted by the ASEAN community and more widely. We deeply believe that that would be contrary to natural justice and to the way in which elected colleagues to Parliament should be treated.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether the resolve of the Government, unlike that of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, is weakening. Many of us believe that we should not accept dual standards of human rights. There is no such thing as oriental human rights and human rights for the rest. There is one standard of human rights which should be accepted under the United Nations mandate.
We do not believe that one should accept dual standards of democratic rights. Many of us believe that the 1990 elections were organised in such a way that it was amazing that the military regime were overwhelmingly rejected. Having gone through that process and having had international observers at the last minute to examine it, it is an abomination in terms of democratic systems to reject the result and to hold Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in captivity for this considerable period.
I point out to my right hon. Friend the Minister that trade is not all. Under the system in Burma, the military are involved in many companies and organisations, making it almost impossible to trade without indirectly supporting the illegal military regime.
Concern has been expressed about the status of refugees in Thailand. The various tribes—the Keren, the Mons, the Chins, the Shan—are under pressure to negotiate with SLORC an end to the civil war. We know that Thailand is


exerting pressure on them to enter negotiations. We are concerned that the status of the refugee, which is absolute in United Nations rules, is being threatened. People can be returned to Burma to face not necessarily trial but being convicted and imprisoned simply for being out of the country.
The processes of the convention should require comment from those outside. The processes have dragged on for a considerable time. Many of the original people called to see whether the convention was an acceptable way of enshrining the military in the future Government of Burma have not attended since because they recognise that it is designed to produce only one result. A convention cannot be designed to produce only one result when a population of 48 million people are seeking only a decent Government. Without Aung San Suu Kyi, whose captivity I began with, remaining there, at great personal cost to herself and her family, the flame of democracy will dim.
I believe that, ultimately, good always triumphs over evil and that Aung San Suu Kyi's time is still to come. I shall finish by quoting her own words:
It is man's vision of civilised humanity which leads him to dare and suffer to build societies free from want and fear. Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks which stand against ruthless power.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I thank the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), on behalf of myself and my constituents, some of whom are committed members of the Burma action group, for raising the plight of Madam Aung San Suu Kyi in the Chamber. I know that they will be deeply grateful.
As the hon. Member for Broxtowe said, Aung San Suu Kyi yesterday began her fifth illegal year of house arrest —the fifth illegal year because SLORC has changed the existing law and extended the legal period that someone can be kept without charge or trial under house arrest.
Perhaps more important, Aung San Suu Kyi has highlighted the continuing failure of SLORC to meet even the most basic requirements of the international community's definition of what constitutes human rights. Recent newspaper reports have stated that small children are being dragooned and forced to walk ahead of troops to detonate land mines on the road. That is just one example of what the regime is doing in Burma.
Once again, I heartily endorse everything that the hon. Member for Broxtowe said and thank him on behalf of myself and my constituents.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: With the leave of the House, I should like to add a few comments, aware fully that my right hon. Friend the Minister is ready to answer the debate.
Just over a year ago, I initiated an Adjournment debate on the same subject. This debate has served as a timely reminder that I was then on my feet, asking my right hon. Friend the Minister why the international community should tolerate such an abuse of civil rights.
Aung San Suu Kyi's only crime is to have been elected. Before she could take up her position, she was incarcerated. When I first spoke about this issue, she had

been incarcerated for four years, but she has now been under house arrest for five years. That is utterly intolerable, not simply because I presume to believe that she would be an excellent leader of her country—none of us has any idea about that and the matter is academic—but because she has a right to demonstrate whether she would be just that.
It is all too easy for hon. Members to take for granted the fact that we can speak about many subjects without thinking what it would be like to have restrictions placed on us that would prevent us from airing the views that our constituents wish us to air on their behalf. On this ghastly anniversary, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do all that is possible, although there is not a great amount that he can do, to persuade the other ASEAN countries not to embark on some form of slow recognition of the ghastly regime in Burma.
The State Law and Order Restoration Council, the aptly-named SLORC, an emotive terminology, should be outlawed and ultimately forced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) have said, to come to terms with the reality that an elected person waits to take up her position and that she should be allowed to do so as soon as possible.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for initiating the debate. I welcome the remarks by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). They and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is in his place, have shown their concern for a long time about Burma and the plight of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, it is certainly timely for the House to focus its attention on the plight of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel peace laureate and daughter of the architect of Burmese independence. As my hon. Friend said, yesterday was the fifth anniversary of her detention under house arrest on 20 July 1989 by the ruling military regime in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council, SLORC.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's continued detention is but one deplorable example of the arbitrary and brutal nature of SLORC, which assumed power in September 1988 after bloodily crushing pro-democracy demonstrations. Although it claimed initially to be an interim authority, and organised fair and free democratic elections in May 1990, it has steadfastly refused to accept the result of these elections, which gave a substantial majority—nearly 60 per cent. of the vote, and over 80 per cent. of the seats—to the party of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
Thanks largely to the tireless efforts of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi herself, as well as her many supporters in the United Kingdom, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, the world has not been allowed to forget the fate of the Burmese peoples. Their struggle for freedom, and SLORC's appalling human rights record, remain major issues of international concern, attracting public and parliamentary interest worldwide.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's own efforts were acknowledged in 1990, when she was awarded the Sakharov prize, followed one year later by the Nobel peace


prize, for her non-violent efforts in support of democracy and human rights. The award of the Nobel peace prize was a particularly fitting tribute to her commitment to the cause of democracy and civil liberties in Burma. It also served as a reminder to SLORC that the world community would neither forget nor ignore the continuing struggle by the Burmese people for their full human rights.
The citation for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's prize from the Nobel Committee described her contribution as one of the most remarkable examples of civilian courage in Asia in recent decades. She has become an important symbol of the struggle against repression and the desire of the Burmese people for a peaceful transition from a military straitjacket to a democratic system. The majority of the Burmese people continue to regard her as the embodiment of their desire for peace, democracy and freedom.
We remain acutely concerned about Daw Aung San Sui Kyi's situation. We have called repeatedly on the SLORC, in concert with our European Union partners and with other like-minded Governments throughout the world, to commence dialogue with the Burmese opposition to agree to the unconditional release of Daw Aung San Sui Kyi and to allow her to remain freely in Burma in accordance with her wishes. That the SLORC continue to ignore all international calls for her release, including those by the United Nations Secretary-General, is quite unacceptable.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was originally detained under the provisions of the 1975 state protection law, as amended in 1991, which states that the maximum period of detention for a person held under that law is five years. But the most recent SLORC interpretation seeks to extend the term, in practice, to six years.
To mark the fifth anniversary of her detention, the European Union issued the following text at the recent session of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission in New York:
The European Union and the acceding countries Austria, Finland, Sweden and Norway view with great concern the continued detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, who has been detained under house arrest in Myanmar since 1989, in flagrant contradiction of all principles of justice. July 20, 1994 marks the fifth anniversary of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's detention. It is unacceptable that there is. still no sign of her release.
On the occasion of the anniversary of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's detention, the European Union and the acceding countries Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden call upon the State Law and Order Restoration Council immediately to start serious and meaningful discussions with the representatives of the democratic forces of Myanmar. In the views of the European Union and the acceding countries, Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden, dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi would open the way for national reconciliation which would, in turn, enable the SLORC to lift the restrictions imposed on her and allow Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to participate in the political process in Myanraar.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is, of course, only one of the many victims of the ruling regime's denial of human rights in Burma. Students, monks and several other members of Burma's opposition movement have all fallen victim to the SLORC's policies. The United Nations special rapporteur on Burma, Professor Yokota of Japan, reported to the United Nations general assembly that SLORC had arrested and tortured many people who had voiced political dissent. He also expressed concern at the numerous reports of disappearances and extra judicial executions. Other human rights violations in Burma include the forced conscription of porters for use in front-line areas and abuses of civilian

non-combatants in the war zones. Freedom of expression remains almost non-existent, with all media being subject to heavy and frequently arbitrary censorship.
As the situation has deteriorated, the United Kingdom, with our European Union partners, has taken a leading role at the United Nations general assembly and at the Commission on Human Rights, to gain consensus support for tough resolutions calling for the unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders and in denouncing the human rights violations reported by Professor Yokota.

Sir Michael Marshall: My hon. Friend will be aware that among the other political leaders to whom he refers are 37 Members of Parliament. He will be aware also of the visit that I made to Rangoon last month on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to press the case for their release as well as that of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
I wish to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). Will my hon. Friend the Minister take the opportunity to assure hon. Members that Her Majesty's Government will give every possible support to visits by parliamentarians to contact those who have been imprisoned in Burma? I think that that would help the process of bringing those in prison some hope and comfort. It would also apply moral pressure for the future.

Mr. Goodlad: I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend did during his recent visit to Burma, in expressing his concern and that of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, along with that of other colleagues, for the detained parliamentarians in Burma. The answer to his question about support for other colleagues following in his footsteps is strongly in the affirmative.
Even in the face of the international concern that I have described, the regime continues its efforts to circumvent the clear expression of the will of the Burmese people. Since 9 January 1993, a national convention has been taking place in Rangoon to draw up a new constitution. We believe that Burma needs a new constitution that incorporates the changes in the political and economic system that the Burmese people have called for since the demonstrations in 1988. It must also provide safeguards for the rights of people belonging to the ethnic minorities, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has referred.
However, one of the guidelines, to which the convention has been told that it must adhere, requires the constitution to enshrine a leading role for the military in Burma's politics. According to the rules of the convention, delegates are forbidden to question this, which makes a mockery of the entire process.
My hon. Friend asked about European Union policy on Burma. I think that he is well aware that our official relations with the SLORC have been virtually non-existent since it assumed power. We suspended all EU and national non-humanitarian official aid at that time and, in 1991, imposed an arms embargo in response to SLORC's refusal to honour the results of the 1990 elections. We severed all remaining defence links a year later. We have maintained pressure on SLORC to improve its human rights record, to respect the results of the 1990 elections and to promote political and economic reform.
A recent review of EU policy confirmed that existing pressure should be maintained, but we have also agreed with EU partners that we should be more active in ensuring


that SLORC understands that the resumption of normal relations between the EU and Burma is dependent on improvements in Burma's human rights performance and progress towards political liberalisation and national reconciliation. We shall be using SLORC's attendance at the ASEAN meeting next week to ensure that it understands our concerns. The presidency will explain our position to the SLORC Foreign Minister in the margins of the meetings of the Association of South-East Asian Nations.
As for the refugees in Thailand, we have insisted—we will continue to do so—that SLORC should treat ethnic minorities in the same way as the rest of the population. We have said that it should apply human rights equally to them.
Although we are talking of the first meeting between the EU and a member of the ruling military regime since it seized power, it should not be seen as a departure from our existing policy on dealings with SLORC. We have consistently refused to accept the regime as the legitimate representatives of the Burmese peoples. We also continue to believe that it is the duty of the international community to persist in their efforts to persuade SLORC to bring about the transfer of power to the civilian Government elected by the people in 1990. We hope that the increasing dialogue between SLORC and neighbouring Asian countries, as

well as western nations, will contribute to that pressure. I concur whole-heartedly with what my hon. Friend said about the universality of human rights.
My hon. Friend mentioned trade links. Trade between Britain and Burma is negligible but increasing. United Kingdom exports for 1993 stood at £19 million and imports were £9 million. There has been an increased interest in the Burmese market. We ensure that British firms are aware of the opportunities in Burma and our policy towards SLORC, but, in line with our European partners, we offer no financial support under ECGD or aid and trade provision.
The British week was consistent with our policy on Burma. There is no obstacle to British companies exploring business opportunities. That is not covered by the European Union embargo on arms sales. That does not derogate from or dull our concern over SLORC.
The continued interest shown in the House reflects the genuine wish of people in Britain to see democracy, freedom and full respect for human rights restored in Burma. We will help to make every possible effort to bring that about. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi once said:
I'm committed to democracy. Until we get there I go on. Let's hope it won't take a lifetime.
We certainly share that hope, but, for as long as it takes, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi will have the support of the Government and, I believe, of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock till Monday 17 October, pursuant to Resolution [20 July].